Chewkw was talking about gender fluidity rather than homosexuality which he agreed was a problem for Asia. They are different things.
It's a good point though, this is a very Euro-centric issue. Many other cultures recognise third genders or even more. This demonstrates it's not a modern thing.
It also shows it can be a problem purely of language. English has two gender words. Would any of this be a problem in say, Hawai'i where there are three gender words?
I'm a gender non-conforming woman. For most of the last year, my working from home wardrobe has been a pair of combat trousers.
I don't have a 'gender identity', I don't 'feel like a woman', I just am a woman, an adult female.
I'm also a lesbian and my attraction is to the opposite sex, not someone's sense of 'gender identity'.
Growing up in the 70s and 80s, I was allowed to be me. If I was a young person growing up today, I know that wouldn't be the case. I guess I was (and still am) 'not like the other girls' but I didn't grow up bombarded with the message that wearing the clothes I wanted to wear, having my hair cut short, and doing the activities I wanted, meant that I don't fit in the 'woman box'.
If I was a young person growing up today, I know that wouldn’t be the case.
Really? What makes you say that?
I started writing some anecdotes about my son’s friends to reassure you that hopefully that isn’t the case… but then realised that as they live in Hebden Bridge, their lives might not be typical.
Really? What makes you say that?
For one, I have more than one friend with a daughter, whose 'identity' has been questioned by their peer group. Just leave them be!
Growing up in the 70s and 80s, I was allowed to be me. If I was a young person growing up today, I know that wouldn’t be the case. I guess I was (and still am) ‘not like the other girls’ but I didn’t grow up bombarded with the message that wearing the clothes I wanted to wear, having my hair cut short, and doing the activities I wanted, meant that I don’t fit in the ‘woman box’.
@rainper Thank you for your post.
The current 'identity' mantra is deeply homophobic.
Chewkw was talking about gender fluidity rather than homosexuality which he agreed was a problem for Asia. They are different things.
I realise chewkw was talking about gender-fluidity (more correctly role-reversal)
People just acknowledge they are having a reversal role in their life. People might laugh or tease them but will let them be.
That contrasts with the report that I quoted.
Just to be sure, I’ll quote the last paragraph again, maybe it got lost:
LBT people faced this frequent violence and daily discrimination without any protection from the state. While many found strength in knowing that they had survived the violence they were subjected to, the quality of survival was affected – even compromised – by the ubiquity of discourses in the public sphere justifying abuse against lesbian and bisexual women. In particular, public discourse sanctioned abuse against gender non-conforming women and men.
*my bold
It’s interesting to see how colonialism has affected traditional cultures.
Western patriarchal culture traditionally (via Christianity) sought to fix a binary view within both itself and the cultures being colonised/oppressed. Similar can be seen with versions of Islam. Malaysia comes to mind in the latter, although didn’t Malaysia used to be Hindu and Buddhist?
Again, I think it’s lazy-minded (and often wrong) to see gender issues as a modern ‘first world’ ‘problem’.
Such a statement itself translates badly, and variously as ‘(sic) they are a first world affliction’ or ‘(sic) they don’t experience hardships/prejudice/hate to speak of by comparison to so-called ‘thirld world countries’
It’s far more complicated? From wikipedia (sorry!)
Gender may be recognized and organized differently in different cultures. In some non-Western cultures, gender may not be seen as binary, or people may be seen as being able to cross freely between male and female, or to exist in a state that is in-between, or neither. In some cultures being third gender may be associated with the gift of being able to mediate between the world of the spirits and world of humans.[39] For cultures with these spiritual beliefs, it is generally seen as a positive thing, though some third gender people have also been accused of witchcraft and persecuted.[40] In most western cultures, people who do not conform to heteronormative ideals are often seen as sick, disordered, or insufficiently formed.[39]
The Indigenous māhū of Hawaii are seen as embodying an intermediate state between man and woman, or as people "of indeterminate gender",[7] while some traditional Dineh of the Southwestern US recognize a spectrum of four genders: feminine woman, masculine woman, feminine man, masculine man.[8] The term "third gender" has also been used to describe the hijras of South Asia[9] who have gained legal identity, the fa'afafine of Polynesia, and the Albanian sworn virgins.[10]
In some Indigenous communities in Africa[vague], a woman can be recognized as a “female husband” who enjoys all of the privileges of men and is recognized as such, but whose femaleness, while not openly acknowledged, is not forgotten either.[41]
The hijras of India are one of the most recognized groups of third gender people. Some western commentators (Hines and Sanger) have theorized that this could be a result of the Hindu belief in reincarnation, in which gender, sex, and even species can change from lifetime to lifetime, perhaps allowing for a more fluid interpretation. There are other cultures in which the third gender is seen as an intermediate state of being rather than as a movement from one conventional sex to the other.[42]
It’s also easy to think that ‘it only really happens in those foreign countries’
in Europe:
Poland:
In Poland, anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric has become widespread in recent years, stoked by President Andrzej Duda, who recently stated that LGBTQ+ people are an ideology ‘even more destructive’ than communism and pledged to ban the propagation of this ‘ideology’ in public institutions.
More than 80 local governments in Poland have declared themselves ‘LGBT-free zones’
Hungary:
Hungary’s far-right ruling party Fidesz has signalled its intention to change the constitution to defend so-called ‘Christian values’. They recently banned the legal recognition of trans people and LGBT people from becoming parents.
United Kingdom:
Transphobia is so prevalent in the UK that in 2017 a trans woman was granted residency in New Zealand because of the persecution she suffered here.
Transphobic hate crimes have quadrupled in the last five years, with 4 out of 5 trans people experiencing a transphobic hate crime, and 1 in 4 experiencing physical assault or the threat of physical assault.
My own experiences of being a non-binary person in the UK have waxed and waned in line with personal confidence/well-being, and also to a degree with cultural/attitude shifts over (IME) the last forty years. Again, IME, where I’ve experienced verbal abuse it has usually been of the homophobic and/or misogynistic nature 🤪
Chewkw was talking about gender fluidity rather than homosexuality which he agreed was a problem for Asia. They are different things.
Not a problem in that region as long as they are not having same sex pleasure. i.e. a man dress up like a woman with the intention to sleep with another man (same applies to women), and in more conservative areas, will only endanger their own lives. Homosexuality is a no there.
For example, if Eddy Izzard lives in that region and moves around with his gender it is not an issue but if he is in his girl mode and try to sleep with a man then he is a gay, which is a no regardless of the mode he is in.
That contrasts with the report that I quoted.
In a ultra conservative area, yes it is dangerous.
If you look at the wedding ceremony of the Sultan of Brunei's children, and if you look carefully you will find that many of those who are managing the ceremony are actually men dressing like women in traditional women dress. Traditionally or historically they are important part of the community.
a man dress up like a woman with the intention to sleep with another man
What if he doesn't dress up?
Come to that,
What if a (non-trans) man and a woman want to engage in a bit of bum fun, is that verboten too or is that fine?
What if he doesn’t dress up?
Same end result. The whole idea is homosexuality or gay sex is not permitted. Gender is defined as the organ(s) a person is born with. If a person has undergone sex change that person might be able to get away for a while but not for long.
What if a (non-trans) man and a woman want to engage in a bit of bum fun ..."
They don't care much about that or simply keep a blind eye to that practice. But if either one of the person starts to complain then one of them will get into trouble.
but I didn’t grow up bombarded with the message that wearing the clothes I wanted to wear, having my hair cut short, and doing the activities I wanted, meant that I don’t fit in the ‘woman box’.
Similar experience, albeit I was born male into a 1970s British working class and of course assigned a male gender.
Growing up in an urban conurbation in the 1980s was a largely tolerant affair but you’d get called ‘poof’ or ‘gay’ in a derogatory fashion just for looking ‘different’ or more ‘feminine’.
I do remember at times having strange men shout from behind as I walked past ‘am yow a chap, or a wench?’
As if it was perfectly OK to ask that of a stranger! OTOH I’ve never experienced strange women either shouting or asking this question. If they decided to offer comment it would be by way of complimenting me on my clothes/hair etc. Or asking
‘Is that real or a wig’?
‘feel it!’
‘Wig! It looks great’
‘Thanks. I used to have hair (laughs)’
I’d ignore it (the shouting) at first. As I reached my third decade it turned out I’d be more ‘flamboyant’ (read ‘confident’) and generally shoot back a friendly/witty retort which would more often see prospecting abusers scuttle or at least look flustered. Men feel more confident to pick on ‘outsiders’ when they are in large groups, I always tended to avoid those situations/crowds.
By the time the 21st century arrived I had already (late 90’s) begun (mistakenly) describing self as ‘pansexual’ (thinking it meant non-prejudiced, as in ‘accepts all’) - but was later informed by then fiancee (since wife) that pansexual meant ‘attracted to all sexes and genders’. That isn’t me, AFAIK I’m only attracted to biological women (although of any gender)
So, seemed like I’m ‘non-binary’ when it came to gender. Which sort of explained a lot.
Have since learned the terms ‘pangender’ and ‘omnigender’ which better describes my experience/identity. I always filled in forms as ‘M’ gender though.
Nowadays I’m outwardly a fat bald bloke locked down in outsized unisex sportswear. This has to be my least favourite ‘incarnation’ to date. Threw my wig away in 2019. Largely (sic, sic, sic!) because: 1. I was unhappy with my looks/weight gain and depressed in general with a number of challenging life-events. 2. It was way past sell by date.
I still dislike wearing suits and overtly ‘masculine’ clothing. Not so much an issue in 2021 UK, as sportswear and casual wear is virtually genderless.
My favourite clothing ever was a vintage striped tube dress with buttons, collar, I’d wear along with stack-heel boots and a bob-haircut (later a wig of the same style). Jewellery? Would have about 50-odd bangles, most from friends. Pierced nose and earring. Jewellery from girlfriends (romantic or otherwise) lived in a box. I felt inexplicably grounded and balanced in being ‘neither male or female’ gender. It wasn’t ‘cross-dressing’ as I didn’t seek to emulate this or that. I knew that I disliked ‘masculine’ jewellery ie thick chains, sovereigns etc. I’d favour folkloric jewellery. I have slim fingers but curiously I chose a thicker wedding ring than my wife, both of the same Celtic design. As if to assert ‘something’?
Few of my past style-choices/clothing, mannerisms, reading material and cultural excursions are an outward features of my life today. My ageing parents would now ‘explain’ that by saying ‘oh he finally grew up’. The truth is that I since got ‘lost’ in recent decades of a depressive illness which had nothing (AFAIK) to do with gender and life-interests/pastimes, and a lot more to do with trackies, emotional eating and psychological numbness.
I joke at times, declaring that I’m now ‘obesexual’.
And so another journey begins.
It’s a long road back to physical/ mental health.
Back to gender issues - IMO making peace with one’s own identity need not be a ‘cherry’ on top of life’s other problems. Neither necessarily a ‘flag of defiance’ against cultural/societal norms. Others will pin that on you.
Making peace with yourself is just the simple act of ‘being’. Rigid conformists will come at you with no sense of irony yet I think most people (not all) go through changes and ‘versions’ of themselves throughout life, even if not so much by way of gender identity. But I warrant that being gender non-binary is under-reported in surveys for any number of reasons.
Have you seen the news about EHRC?
Yes I have. At face value this seems like good news.
For anyone wondering, the EHRC is no longer a member of the Stonewall Diversity Champions Scheme.
https://sex-matters.org/posts/media/press-release-equality-and-human-rights-commission-cuts-ties-with-stonewall/
Seems like the EHRC is becoming increasingly politicised and are now being drawn into 'anti-woke' culture wars at the behest of the government. How is that a good thing?
Before anyone spends too much time or emotional energy engaging with rainper’s contributions to this thread, I recommend checking out their posting history, just so you are prepared for where things are likely to lead to.
Seems like the EHRC is becoming increasingly politicised and are now being drawn into ‘anti-woke’ culture wars at the behest of the government. How is that a good thing?
@grum I have the opposite conclusion. Stonewall is an activist group focusing on particular protected characteristics (Equality Act). The Commission has a duty to be neutral, especially where there maybe a conflict between protected characteristics.
Well @clarkpm4242 the former chair of the EHRC seems to agree with me.
The former Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has revealed his suspicions of a plot within government to politicise the supposedly independent body.
David Isaac, who headed the agency from 2016 to 2020, told the Guardian that new appointments made to the EHRC by Minister for Women and Equalities, Liz Truss, have been selected for their political beliefs and likelihood to support Number 10.
He cited a recent speech by Truss, in which she announced the EHRC would “drive” forward a focus on the plight of white working class people and less on women and ethnic minorities, as evidence of government meddling.
https://www.ier.org.uk/news/the-ehrc-is-becoming-a-political-instrument-former-chair-says/
I don't really know that much about Stonewall TBH and maybe there is a real issue but the agenda here is pretty clear.
Rainper and p7eaven.
Thank you so much for your posts. It's a journey isn't it!
Thanks @grum however, my rationale still holds. The Commission cannot weigh up competing interests in a neutral manner if it is actively and singularly engaged with a political/activist group that sides with one of the impacted groups.
Before anyone spends too much time or emotional energy engaging with rainper’s contributions to this thread, I recommend checking out their posting history, just so you are prepared for where things are likely to lead to.
So ‘be kind’ doesn’t extend to the only declared lesbian on this thread?
It’s not insulting to suggest people look at past contributions to gain context and understanding before engaging in depth with someone on a particular issue. Is it? I’ve just advised checking out their posting history.
^ being ‘kind’ ≠ ‘not insulting’?
Kindness is defined as the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate. ...
Okay, why is it inconsiderate (unfriendly/ungenerous) to suggest checking out past contributions before engaging in depth?
Why are you singling out this particular poster? I've just read all rainper's posts - there does't seem to be anything that's especially contentious, certainly nothing I can see that would put me off engaging with her.
Why are you singling out this particular poster?
I shouldn’t have. It applies to others as well.
Fair play.
I'm still at a loss though. As I said I read her posts after you suggested it. There were some I agreed with others that I didn't, but nothing that would make me wary of engaging: no insulting, no picking on another individual, no strops, no anger. I simply cannot see why you consider that this poster needs a warning.
They don’t need a ‘warning’, any more than you or clarkpm4242 (or anyone else) does. But it is far quicker to appreciate their views on gender than either of you, because they post about very little else on this forum. It takes only a few minutes to have a quick read, and take into account, their posts on this issue, because unlike others you don’t have to filter out posts about other issues or mountain biking.
Ah, so me and clarkpm4242 need a warning as well, eh? I see where you're coming from now.
I'm not sure why, I don't consider disagreement to be a problem. I've liked reading your posts, agreed with some of them and learned something from some of them as well. It seems strange to take part in a discussion on a subject if you only want to engage with certain viewpoints.
It seems strange to take part in a discussion on a subject if you only want to engage with certain viewpoints.
I haven’t said don’t engage with anyone with any viewpoint, I’ve said that it’s worth checking out the past posts from one poster before doing so in depth with them. In fact, a quick easy scan of their posts helps understand their viewpoint very quickly, and that could help engage with useful background and context, and with perhaps more sensitivity and, yes, care.
I'm not siding, I know what Kelvin is referring to but I'd also say 'play the ball not the man'. I'm sure there are experiences and opinions to be shared that are valuable, let's wait and see what they are.
Ok Kelvin, you seem like a decent sort so I'll accept you were posting in good faith, maybe I misread the tone.
I'm perhaps being a bit sensitive as I think rainper is the only lesbian in the discussion, possibly the only woman. Just as it's important to hear the lived experience of boriselbrus I think people should listen to her.
For the record I'm very much of the JK Rowling school of belief. Everyone should do what they can to live their best lives: dress how they want, call themselves what they want, sleep with any consenting adult that agrees.
I also believe we have a number of classes who have various protections: BAME people, those with disabilities, children, women, etc. I don't think that people should have the ability to 'opt in' to those protections if they are not of that class. Other than that they can describe themselves how they want.
I understand that lots of people, many of whom I would agree with on other subjects, think otherwise.
Ok Kelvin, you seem like a decent sort so I’ll accept you were posting in good faith, maybe I misread the tone.
I read Kelvin's post, am not about to go searching through the history of every poster before I reply to them and in fact am terrible at keeping track of usernames* but I assumed the implication was that rainper was a TERF and therefore best avoided. When seemingly the opposite is true.
(* - A while ago I got challenged by a user as to why I was continually picking on them, arguing and following them across threads to troll them. I didn't recall ever seeing their username ever before in my life. Text can be a fickle mistress.)
For the record I’m very much of the JK Rowling school of belief.
You need to be a little careful here - and do some reading - because this is a dangerous logical fallacy you've sided with. It's the "well, I self-identify as a postbox!" argument and it's used continually to belittle and demonise already struggling minorities.
Did you "opt in" to being a white heterosexual male (or whatever you are, I'm just playing the odds here) or is it just how you are? The examples you yourself cite, could you "opt in" to those other categories, could you opt in to being black? Could you get half fare on the bus by self-identifying as a 12-year old? It's ridiculous and (because of course this is an STW discussion) also a straw man.
These people are not opting in to anything any more than my mate at work opted to be ginger. I rather expect that when they were teenagers many would've loved to have been able to opt out and be 'normal' like most of their peers. You have read the posts on this thread talking about suicide, right? This is the discussion we had in the 1980s around homosexuality all over again, "well, if you choose to be gay then what do you expect..."
Maybe we should add non-binary to your list of groups requiring protection? Right now they probably need it at least as much as the others you've listed, so everyone's a winner. Why do you think that protecting one group has to come at the exclusion of protecting another? As per the previous paragraph, this is the "same-sex marriage is destroying marriage" argument. It's not like it's suddenly become bloody mandatory, you're not 'less married' than you were last week.
I wrote my post 'for the record' as Kelvin seemed to be a little suspicious about where I was commenting from - I wanted to be open and clear. I don't really want to get involved in a debate as I know it upsets some people and it's not as if anything we say here will solve anything.
However, you seem to be suggesting I said a lot of things that are nothing like what I believe, so again, for the record:
Nothing I wrote is anything like an "I identify as a post box" argument. I have every sympathy with trans and non-binary people. I don't always agree with them, but I do not think they should be ridiculed with puerile comparisons like that (and I think it's you who is making the straw man argument).
No, I of course do not believe that anyone can opt in to being black. Nor do I believe that anyone can opt in to being a woman. If you are born white you are white, if you are born male you are male. This does not mean you cannot dress in a stereotypically feminine way, call yourself by a stereotypically feminine name, etc., but material reality is not altered.
I absolutely think we should add non-binary as a protected category. Non-binary people deserve to be happy and to have safe spaces same as anyone else.
This is nothing like the 'same sex marriage' argument. Homosexual people getting married affected nobody but homosexual people. I know you believe that transwomen (and non-binary males some of the time, I assume) are actual women, so you think accepting them into women's spaces, allowing them into women's sport, allowing them onto women-only shortlists, etc, is fair. I do not. Women are protected because of their biology, not because they feel like women. I know some will disagree, but I don't think this makes me a bigot.
I found your 'do some reading' comment extremely patronising. I have read widely on this subject, and spoken to many people about it. And I actually listened.
Women are protected because of their biology
That's some hardcore bullshit right there, women are "protected" because many men are arseholes I thought!
Bless them, they can't look after themselves 🙄🤔
@kelvin where do I stand...TL; DR
Formerly an NHS hospital doctor with years of A&E experience. I have grave concerns on the impact of the transgender narrative on the vulnerable adolescents and young adults that I met during some of their darkest moments.
Sex is biologically determined and fixed. Gender is a societal construct 'imposed' and assimilated/developed through life, an aspect of personality?
A very Sunday evening post...
@anagallis_arvensis
Incredibly clumsy use of language from me there, for which I apologise. I meant protected in the sense that women have spaces, sports, short-list, refuges, etc, reserved solely for them. Protected from male imposition.
In no way did I intend to imply that women cannot look after themselves.
I have grave concerns on the impact of the transgender narrative on the vulnerable adolescents and young adults that I met during some of their darkest moments.
Can you explain? Concerned it is being pushed too readily, or that adolescents are not being supported in their needs? THE GIC is currently seeing people who were referred in Oct 2017
Have you read much on what JKR has to say on the subject? Because it's seemingly in conflict with what you're asserting you actually think. Well, somewhat.
I know you believe that transwomen are actual women,
Because they are, unless you're going to counter with the 'bloke in a dress' argument. Have any of the "many" people you've spoken to been M➡F trans women? Did any of them agree with you?
(and non-binary males some of the time, I assume)
I mean, you could ask rather than assuming. We're going to run out of straw soon otherwise.
so you think accepting them into women’s spaces, allowing them into women’s sport, allowing them onto women-only shortlists, etc, is fair.
I think it's complicated and I don't think it's helpful to lump all of those things into one amorphous mass and then present it as a throwaway statement with a [yes|no] tick box at the end. I'll refer you back to the thread title.
No, I of course do not believe that anyone can opt in to being black
So your argument is "I don't believe that people shouldn't be allowed to opt into something that they cannot opt into". This was your example not mine. It's a tautology.
I found your ‘do some reading’ comment extremely patronising. I have read widely on this subject, and spoken to many people about it. And I actually listened.
Terribly sorry. I'll revise that. Do more reading.
Because whilst you're feeling patronised, others are feeling persecuted and attacked.
You're not being very nice to me Cougar, while I am trying to argue in good faith. What happened to 'be kind?'
Concerned it is being pushed too readily
in wider society, yes. However, given this is the situation we are already in, those that have problems should have better access to appropriate services. Unfortunately, CAMHS has been decimated over recent years. That service should be an accessible first port of call for comprehensive assessment and management.
I have no answer for you personally and my heart goes out to your and your family.
I have grave concerns on the impact of the transgender narrative on the vulnerable adolescents and young adults that I met during some of their darkest moments.
Is this 'transgender narrative' a positive or negative impact? It's not clear to me what you mean, sorry.
Sex is biologically determined and fixed.
How would you define that?
Sigh.
I did try. I really did. This is why I didn't want to enter the debate in this way.
Cougar
Good luck to you, I know you're arguing from a position where you want the best for people. I don't know why you cannot give me the same respect.
I'm not one of those people who feel like they have to have the last word, so I'm bowing out as I think I've said a lot of what I'd like to say (note - this is not the same as what Cougar says I'm saying :)) Apologies to anyone hurt by anything I've said, I've tried to be tactful but it's difficult with a subject like this.
Unfortunately, CAMHS has been decimated over recent years.
Something we can all agree with, I hope. Schools are having to try to take up the slack, and some of our local schools have done an amazing job. With the issues discussed in this thread though, that is not so much as regards being an alternative to professional mental health intervention, but rather helping kids to be more open, to feel welcome and included, and hopefully less likely to get to the dark place where urgent mental health care is needed. Support for schools (and for parents seeking assistance) is a “postcode” lottery, and all but absent in many areas of the country now.
Thanks.
I know, we're having to find the money for private consultations, and eventually once at the right age then whatever treatment is appropriate. I worry that a private clinic *may not* always act in the absolute best interests - particularly as you say that the narrative is becoming increasingly pro-
My wife and I are concerned that he doesn't become a 'project'. But a four year waiting list is beyond tolerable to a teen that is struggling every day.
