What is the definition of Gender and Sex?

[sissystephanie]

Moderator's Note: I split these posts away from another thread as they were off-topic there. They do raise a good question that is better discussed in a separate thread here.

Peta, unless you have female sex organs you are a Man. Your Gender is detirmined by what organs you were born with, not by what you think. And religeon has nothing at all to do with anyones gender!

So you are a man, but you like to wear feminine clothes!! Well, so do most of us CD's on this forum!! That is why we are on here. I have been a CD for most of my life and I am currently 80 y/o! And I am dressed totally enfemme as I write this. That doesn't change anything as far as I am concerned. And yes, I do go out in public dressed enfemme almost every day. How I dress and act is my business, unless I am hurting someone else by doing so!! Be yourself and quit worrying!!

[Rianna Humble]

Peta, unless you have female sex organs you are a Man. Your Gender is detirmined by what organs you were born with, not by what you think.

Stephanie, you do not help anyone by conflating natal sex and gender. If, as her writings suggest strongly, she is transgender then you could not be further from the truth about whether she is a man or not based solely upon her sex organs.

The ONLY thing that your sex organs tells you is what your natal SEX may have been.

If someone is Intersex, then they may apparently have male sex organs but in fact be female.

If someone is transsexual then their sex organs and their brain size and configurations belong to opposite genders.

Had you have said "Your birth sex is partially determined by what sex organs you were born with" then you would have been right.

[DonniDarkness]

More I was asking why/how we can end up with our "physical sex" being the opposite of the gender of our soul.
These are my thoughts.

Gender is a mental label. Sex is a physical label. Labels do not effect the soul, because they are irrelevant to the spiritual realm. I do not believe our souls are male or female. They simply exist.


Fear of being more alone than I already am, fear of losing everyone in my life.
Once you make steps to coming out and get involved with your local LGBT community, you soon realize that your not alone. A support circle of local friends and other people who are going thru the same things you are diminish that fear in due time.

Keep your Chin up,
-Donni-

[sissystephanie]

Stephanie, you do not help anyone by conflating natal sex and gender. If, as her writings suggest strongly, she is transgender then you could not be further from the truth about whether she is a man or not based solely upon her sex organs.

The ONLY thing that your sex organs tells you is what your natal SEX may have been.

If someone is Intersex, then they may apparently have male sex organs but in fact be female.

If someone is transsexual then their sex organs and their brain size and configurations belong to opposite genders.

Had you have said "Your birth sex is partially determined by what sex organs you were born with" then you would have been right.

Rianna, your response is very different from what I have learned from the doctors that I have talked to. The sex organs you were born with are the ONLY thing that detirmine your birth sex!! If a baby is born with male sex organs, that baby is a male!! Not a Transsexual or an Intersex. Those things come later, when the baby has grown to where the mind comprehends things.

Unless an awful lot of doctors are totally wrong the sex organs that you are born with are the only thing that detirmines, not only your birth sex, but also your gender. You can change that gender by having surgery, but that is the only way it can really be changed. Just thinking you are a woman does not change any thing!! If Peta has male sex organs, then he/she is really a man!! He may think of himself as a woman, but without surgery that is not true!!

[arbon]

Unless an awful lot of doctors are totally wrong the sex organs that you are born with are the only thing that detirmines, not only your birth sex, but also your gender. You can change that gender by having surgery, but that is the only way it can really be changed. Just thinking you are a woman does not change any thing!! If Peta has male sex organs, then he/she is really a man!! He may think of himself as a woman, but without surgery that is not true!!

I think you misunderstand - gender is not determined by sex. Transsexuals change their bodies to better align with their gender - changing their bodys does not a make them their gender. They already are. My gender is female with or without surgery, it does not change and it is not determined by what's between my legs.

[DonniDarkness]

Stephanie.......

Gender is a mental awareness of ones inner self

Birth sex does not always correspond with Gender.

-Donni-

[sissystephanie]

Arbon and DonniD, you are both wrong! Gender is the sex you were born with!! It definitely is defined by the organs that you were born with.You may think whatever you like about yourself, but that does nto change your gender or your sex. You would have to have SRS to change your gender, which is also your sex!! Gender is not totally mental, though many people would like to think so!! If you think differently, ask a medical doctor his or her opinion. I have many times!!

BTW, you both look like lovely ladies in spite of the actuality! At least I believe you are both men in reality!

[arbon]

Arbon and DonniD, you are both wrong! Gender is the sex you were born with!! It definitely is defined by the organs that you were born with.You may think whatever you like about yourself, but that does nto change your gender or your sex. You would have to have SRS to change your gender, which is also your sex!! Gender is not totally mental, though many people would like to think so!! If you think differently, ask a medical doctor his or her opinion. I have many times!!

BTW, you both look like lovely ladies in spite of the actuality! At least I believe you are both men in reality!

My doctor lists me as female on everything. Thanks

You know I have to defend my gender identity out there an awefull lot, pretty much everyday, but having to do it here seems a little wrong and not to happy about it.

[Rianna Humble]

BTW, you both look like lovely ladies in spite of the actuality! At least I believe you are both men in reality!

You may believe all you want and continue to disrespect these two women but that will not make you right. Neither will quoting the doctors who you claim to have asked although you do not back up that claim with any proof that they had the first clue about gender.

It is a shame that we have to endure this kind of hate from a long-standing member of the MtF forum, but he will not succeed in driving us out.

[Kate Simmons]

For societal convenience, the label on our birth certificate reads either male or female according to the physical plumbing we were born with. Gender is determined by how we develop as a person and the things we relate to. Sex and gender can sometimes overlap in everyday life and there really are no absolutes. The bottom line is we are who we feel we think we are, physical organs notwithstanding. :)

[Rogina B]

You know I have to defend my gender identity out there an awefull lot, pretty much everyday, but having to do it here seems a little wrong and not to happy about it.
I completely agree!

[DeeDeeB]

Hi Stephanie,

I believe you should look into the current research which has found that we all are a combination of male and female. Genetics and hormones shift us somewhere between macho male and totally femme. Most of us here are in the middle, tending towards femme. They have even proved the sacred "Y" chromosone isn't a sure guarantee of male genetalia.

I have always believed I am a transition child, last of the boys and followed by a girl. My feminine tendencies I believe are a result of my "weakened" male genetics and "strengthened" female genetics. I have no desire to transition, but firmly believe in my feminine assignment.

I applaud your expressing yourself as feminine, but also feel you should accept, or at least not challenge the possibility you may have feminine genetics.

:fairy1:
Dee

[Angela Campbell]

Actually Arbon and DonniD are absolutely correct. Some who do not know much about the subject often get Gender and sex mixed up but the sex is the body and the gender is in the mind. Sexual reassignment surgery changes the sex to match the gender. My sex is male....my gender is female. Then you get into sexual preferences or orientation. This gets complicated when there is a problem with sex and gender not matching.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2000to2004/2002-sex-and-gender.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

these are just the first few articles I found but if you do some research you will see what the proper meanings of the words are.

What Stephanie got wrong is the part where he confused the two words. Here it is....the organs and the body you were born with determines your birth sex. Your gender is what develops afterward. A sex change is what changes the sex to match the gender.

[BLUE ORCHID]

Doesn't gender refere to terms or words such as he/she, male/female, man/woman, him/her and not people.

The Dictionary says 1,gender--in grammar the classification by which words are groped as masculine, feminine or neuter.
. 2, sex

[Beverley Sims]

I think I could read ten books on the subject and there would be a different interpretation each time.

[willnotwill]

Words have gender.
People have sex.
It is a *******ization of the language to apply "gender" to human behavior. It's an attempt to divorce "sex" from the "act of reproduction."

[Rianna Humble]

If a baby is born with male sex organs, that baby is a male!! Not a Transsexual or an Intersex. Those things come later, when the baby has grown to where the mind comprehends things.

This demonstrates that your authorities have no understanding of their subject. An intersex baby is born with both sets of sex organs. In the past ignorant doctors used to perform surgery to remove one set and assign a sex to the baby. In doing so they had a 50/50 chance of picking a sex that did not conform to the gender of the baby's brain. In later life those babies would suffer untold mental anguish because their brain did not match their assigned sex.


Unless an awful lot of doctors are totally wrong the sex organs that you are born with are the only thing that detirmines, not only your birth sex, but also your gender.

An awful lot of doctors used to believe that the way to cure many ailments was by giving increasing doses of arsenic. Fortunately, medical science proved them wrong. Any doctor who refuses to acknowledge the advances made by medical science is a danger to those he treats. This includes those who support your hatred of transsexuals.


You can change that gender by having surgery, but that is the only way it can really be changed.

Once again proving that your "authorities" are stuck in the past. There is conclusive proof via well published case studies that changing a person's sex organs cannot alter their gender. You are stuck in the past when ignorant people believed that gender was a case of nature not nurture.

I don't care if you believe that the earth is flat or not - after all there is as much scientific evidence for the earth being flat as there is for your anti-trans hate speech. I do care when you use your unscientific beliefs to try to deny the truth about other forum members and disrespect them by insisting that your wrong beliefs trump their scientifically proven personal experience.

If you were deliberately disrespecting me by insisting on calling me "He" in real life in my country you would actually be breaking the law.

[Kittie]

This is just a mess of semantics.


Sex
In genetic sex-determination systems, an organism's sex is determined by the genome it inherits. Genetic sex-determination usually depends on inherited sex chromosomes which carry genetic features that influence development.


Gender
Gender is a range of characteristics of femininity and masculinity. Depending on the context, the term may refer to such concepts as sex (i.e. the state of being male or female), social roles (as in gender roles) or gender identity.


Some of the comments on here are old fashioned or just plain incorrect. Misinformed, perhaps not "hateful". If however, they are indeed the latter; call me a guy all you wish, make not the mistake of thinking a single f*ck shall be given.

[CamillaCD]

I have to agree with Kittie. In Norwegian "sex" is not used to differentiate between male and female. It is used for sexual characteristics, e.g. having sex, sexual orientation, sex toys, and sex industry.

We have a word that would resemble your "gender". To avoid confusion the type of gender may be used, e.g. biological gender (chromosomes and DNA), gender identity (what your brain thinks), gender expression (clothing and mannerisms) or judicial gender.

[Angela Campbell]

I don't think I have seen any hate here. A disagreement over terms, yes. Hatred not at all. Just because someone has a different opinion on something as you do does not mean there is any hate there.

[kimdl93]

We often witness disagreements over the meaning of certain terms. Sometimes the disagreements reflect misunderstanding of meanings....for example many individuals confuse transgender with transsexual. Disagreements can also derive from differences in age and cultural background.

It's OK. Words are abstractions we use in an attempt to describe the world around us. Misinterpretations and different perspectives are inevitable. My advice is to remember that the meaning each of us assigns may be somewhat different than another persons understanding. There is no need to abandon one set and adopt another....simply state what Your definition when you employ the term so that other people have a better chance of understanding your meaning in your context.

[I Am Paula]

I haven't heard Stephanie's aguement since about 1970, and I think she may have misunderstood her Doctor, or her Doctor is living in the last century(plus some). -Celeste

[Michaela51]

Sex is what's going on between your legs, gender is what is going on between your ears.

[arbon]

I don't think I have seen any hate here. A disagreement over terms, yes. Hatred not at all. Just because someone has a different opinion on something as you do does not mean there is any hate there.


Being told your gender identity is wrong and that your really just a guy is mean, hurtful, and unnecessary to me. I don't know if he said those things out of hate or just ignorance (he did use a lot of explanation points in his statements), but regardless it is very disappointing that its allowed on a site where you would think gender identities would be a little more respected. That rather then deleting or editing those comments and warning the user to be more respectful its given its own thread for debate.

[Rogina B]

My advice is to remember that the meaning each of us assigns may be somewhat different than another persons understanding. There is no need to abandon one set and adopt another....simply state what Your definition when you employ the term so that other people have a better chance of understanding your meaning in your context.
I often post that people have to be very careful with "labels" as many people don't comprehend or give it quick study and form an image that satisfies the label.Seems to me that the "Transsexual" label is way too powerful to be just thrown around easily. The label brings up a different image than the term "Transgender" seems to.Transgender easily allows you to "temper it a bit" as you explain yourself more easily. Thursday night,I was shown a poll taken two years ago at my UU church regarding the understanding of the LGBTQ world. The 80 members that participated gave support[to what I have said]as to the lack of understanding of "T world" labels. "Clinical" is great,but that isn't dealing with the minds of the average person.

[Foxglove]

Peta, unless you have female sex organs you are a Man. Your Gender is detirmined by what organs you were born with, not by what you think. And religeon has nothing at all to do with anyones gender!

So you are a man, but you like to wear feminine clothes!! Well, so do most of us CD's on this forum!! That is why we are on here. I have been a CD for most of my life and I am currently 80 y/o! And I am dressed totally enfemme as I write this. That doesn't change anything as far as I am concerned. And yes, I do go out in public dressed enfemme almost every day. How I dress and act is my business, unless I am hurting someone else by doing so!! Be yourself and quit worrying!!


Rianna, your response is very different from what I have learned from the doctors that I have talked to. The sex organs you were born with are the ONLY thing that detirmine your birth sex!! If a baby is born with male sex organs, that baby is a male!! Not a Transsexual or an Intersex. Those things come later, when the baby has grown to where the mind comprehends things.

Unless an awful lot of doctors are totally wrong the sex organs that you are born with are the only thing that detirmines, not only your birth sex, but also your gender. You can change that gender by having surgery, but that is the only way it can really be changed. Just thinking you are a woman does not change any thing!! If Peta has male sex organs, then he/she is really a man!! He may think of himself as a woman, but without surgery that is not true!!

Hi, Stephanie! I'll echo others on this thread and point out that your remarks here are offensive. Where you're going wrong is that you're using the terms "sex" and "gender" as if they're interchangeable. Now among the general public they may be, and they may also be in a dictionary. But we transpeople draw a distinction between them, and this is what you're failing to grasp.

I'll explain it like this: outwardly I'm male. Despite that, my inner feelings are female. That's what makes me transgender--this difference between my plumbing and my feelings. Transgender people conceptualize it like this: your sex is your genitalia, your gender is in your mind.

Unless I'm mistaken you identify as a CDer and as male. Therefore you may not feel any disparity between your sex and your gender, and therefore perhaps you don't understand that some of us do. For me and for many others on this forum, our sex and our gender are different.

You need to grasp this point. Now it's abundantly clear to me from your many posts that you're not a malicious person--quite the contrary. But the remarks you've made on this thread are virtually identical to remarks you find on many places on the net made by cisgender trans-haters specifically to mock transgender people: "You've got a penis. You're a man." "You've got XY chromosomes. You're a man."

They totally miss the point, which is the disparity between a person's sex and gender, which is precisely what makes that person transgender. I'm well aware what I have between my legs and I'm well aware what is going on in my mind. Ridiculing transpeople by ignoring their gender ridicules the pain they often feel. It is discouraging to encounter that sort of thing on this forum, of all places.

Stephanie, I'll repeat that I know you're not a malicious person and the offense you've given here is completely unintentional. But I would plead with you to think about this and come to an understanding of the distinction between sex and gender so as not to give offense to any of our members again in this way in the future.

Best wishes, Annabelle

[Marleena]

Sex=what genitals the doctor sees when you're born and checks off on your birth certificate.

Gender=what sex your brain tells you you are.

I think some of the TS comments are based on lack of knowledge or the ability to comprehend that if you start out with a penis you can only be a man. Anybody that has been here a while should know better. People need to take the time to educate themselves on these things. You need an open mind.

[ImAlexis]

Medicine takes a someone more complicated view of sex and gender. From this standpoint, everyone has three distinct sexes, a chromosomal sex (normally XX or XY), gonadal sex (normally ovaries or testicles), and phenotypic sex (what's on the outside, vagina or penis).

One thing to remember is that even sex specific structures have common embryological origins. The ovaries and testicles both come from gonadal streaks. Additionally, the clitoris/glans penis, labia minora/shaft of the penis, labia majora/scrotum, and the round ligament of the uterus (anchors the uterus to the body wall) and the scrotal ligament (anchors the testicles to the scrotum. Also responsible for moving the testicles into the scrotum through the inguinal canal) all have common origins. This is important for someone with complete androgen insensitivity, who has a chromosomal sex of male (XY) and gonadal sex of male (testicles, which are formed because of the presence of the SRY gene which is almost always on the Y chromosome, but it can move like the rest of the genes). However, since testosterone (specifically 5-DHT) is responsible for external organs, they end up with a phenotypic sex of female and normally a gender of female.

While yes, sexual organs are generally used to determine birth certificate sex (let's be honest, normally chromosomal sex, gonadal sex, phenotypic sex, and gender all match), the current mindset is if something is ambiguous (say, congenital adrenal hyperplasia where there's increased androgens in utero which can cause females to look like they have a rudimentary penis and scrotum), then to call it ambiguous, provide support to the parents, and start to work the baby up. Any surgery is supposed to be delayed until the child is old enough to actually express a gender.

[Marleena]

Needed to add that being TS is determined during fetal development before the child is even born.

[ImAlexis]

However the development of the brain and the development of the rest of the body are treated differently. The mechanisms for intersexed conditions, in contrast to gender identity disorders, is much better known. I can easily point to a specific cause and mechanism of chromosomal issues (i.e. Turners, Klinfelters, XX males, etc) or many intersexed conditions (as mentioned in my prior post). For various reasons (historical/societal, and biological... it's impossible to go back 20-30 years and figure out what specifically happened in utero), the specific mechanisms/pathophysiology/pathology of gender identity disorders are not nearly as well known.

[Marleena]

However the development of the brain and the development of the rest of the body are treated differently. The mechanisms for intersexed conditions, in contrast to gender identity disorders, is much better known. I can easily point to a specific cause and mechanism of chromosomal issues (i.e. Turners, Klinfelters, XX males, etc) or many intersexed conditions (as mentioned in my prior post). For various reasons (historical/societal, and biological... it's impossible to go back 20-30 years and figure out what specifically happened in utero), the specific mechanisms/pathophysiology/pathology of gender identity disorders are not nearly as well known.

Agree.. was just adding to my own post.:)

[kimdl93]

I often post that people have to be very careful with "labels" as many people don't comprehend or give it quick study and form an image that satisfies the label.Seems to me that the "Transsexual" label is way too powerful to be just thrown around easily. The label brings up a different image than the term "Transgender" seems to.Transgender easily allows you to "temper it a bit" as you explain yourself more easily. Thursday night,I was shown a poll taken two years ago at my UU church regarding the understanding of the LGBTQ world. The 80 members that participated gave support[to what I have said]as to the lack of understanding of "T world" labels. "Clinical" is great,but that isn't dealing with the minds of the average person.

I entirely agree. There can certainly be more precision and fewer people offended if one chooses terminology carefully, and where common usage deviates from what may be more technically correct, it helps to provide greater detail to the term. Of corpse some people will simply ignore the explanation. Communication is more art than science.

[Angela Campbell]

Being told your gender identity is wrong and that your really just a guy is mean, hurtful, and unnecessary to me. I don't know if he said those things out of hate or just ignorance (he did use a lot of explanation points in his statements), but regardless it is very disappointing that its allowed on a site where you would think gender identities would be a little more respected. That rather then deleting or editing those comments and warning the user to be more respectful its given its own thread for debate.

I agree it was thoughtless and offensive, but I do not think it was meant that way or in a hateful way. I do not think Steph hates us because of what we are he just doesn't understand a lot of things. I am told sometimes I am a man and I should act like one, but I am not a man and never have been. So I do understand. I just think it is more not understanding rather than hate.

[Rianna Humble]

Recently a sports personality in this country who is demonstrably not a racist was found guilty by his sports governing body of using racist words and was punished for that even though a court of law had found that there was sufficient evidence to show that he was repeating back to the other person the lies that the other person had spread about him. The governing body underlined that the sportsman was not racist but had used racist words and thereby caused offence.

Steph may have just been repeating trans-hate phrases out of stupidity or ignorance, but in denying the truth of Arbon's gender and insisting that he has the right to call her a man, he was using trans-hate speech and that is intolerable.

[Eryn]

Moderator's note:

This thread is about the definition of Gender and Sex. It is not about hate or criticizing the views of any forum member.

Please limit discussion to the definitions of Gender and Sex only.

[Frédérique]

So you are a man, but you like to wear feminine clothes!! Well, so do most of us CD's on this forum!! That is why we are on here.

If only it was that simple. You and I are definitely in the minority around here, Steph…:sad:

What it all boils down to is that some of us MtF crossdressers are transgendered, and some of us aren’t. While I can appreciate the TG viewpoint, seeing (as it is) the overriding viewpoint on this discussion forum, I have no idea what it’s like to be transgendered, nor do I know what a TG individual thinks about day-to-day. As such, I can’t comment on TG issues, but I am a MtF CD, quite definitely so, and it’s important to hear opinions from all regions of the CD spectrum. As for sex and gender, to a non-TG person like myself these are societal impositions that the very act of crossdressing highlights. I must enter a discussion on sex (or gender, if you prefer) because my penchant for wearing the clothes of the other gender obliges me to – if I dress a certain way, it means I must be expressing a certain amount of confusion, or questioning, about my sex, even though gender identity is not an issue for me...

This comes with the territory, I suppose, but few appreciate the fact that many MtF crossdressers just dress for pleasure and they have no intention of tackling issues like gender confusion, or TG rights, or “community� precepts that are part of the larger queer world. Many of us just wish to dress-up, period, and feel good about ourselves. The latter is helped by coming here to discuss, meet others, and attempt to foster well-being about this chronically misunderstood human undertaking. However, every time a non-TG individual raises a salient point, he or she is shouted down like some person unworthy of “the floor.� Personally, I have no squabble with anyone, especially other MtF crossdressers, but someone needs to point out that being transgendered is NOT the whole (CD) ball of wax...
:hmph:

[Rogina B]

Freddy,everyone has a right to their own opinion.I think this thread caused such division was due to the opening statement!

[sissystephanie]

If I have hurt, in any way, any of the members of this forum I am truly sorry. I never had any intention of doing that to anyone! The views that I stated in my OP came from much study and conversations with several doctors. 3 of those doctors are medical professors who really know what they are talking about, and are not behind the times!!

I have never in my life been known as being "hateful", and certainly don't want that reputation on this forum. Maybe the only thing that I could be accused of hating is the Terrorists who kill innocent people for no real reason!! As I have said before, I have been a CD for a very long time, and have done a lot of study about crossdressing over those years.

[arbon]

Your a crossdresser I respect that. I'm NOT. I'm a transsexual woman, be respectful and don't call me a man.

[ReineD]

Arbon and DonniD, you are both wrong! Gender is the sex you were born with!!

There have been many threads/posts explaining this, but here's another one:

"GENDER" actually has 3 components:

1. Birth anatomy (commonly referred to as a person's sex)
2. Internal gender identification.
3. Preferred gender role and presentation.


If a birth male identifies internally as a male, and he does not want to cross over into any feminine gender role and/or presentation, then he is not transgendered and you can most definitely say that his gender matches his sex. So, in this case, and ONLY in this case, your statement above would be correct.

BUT ... not everyone is like that. Some people do crossdress. So for them, the internal gender ID may or may not to varying degrees match their birth sex, but they do ONE thing that is different than the men in my paragraph above and this is, they have an affinity for, and adopt the presentation and/or sometimes the gender role of the opposite sex. So, even if they do identify as men (in the case of MtF), there is still a mismatch somewhere even if it is to a small degree and they do fall under the umbrella "transgender". Another term frequently used to describe crossdressers is "gender non-conforming", unless of course the dressing is strictly fetish, but this is a different discussion.

Last, there are transsexuals for whom the internal gender ID most definitely does not match their anatomy. Furthermore, they wish to live as their true internal feminine selves and they wish to adopt the gender role and presentation of women full time, and eventually possibly get sexual reassignment surgery. So you cannot say that with transsexuals, the gender and birth sex are the same at all.

Not to complicate things, but there are also people who do not fall into the gender binary (either male or female) in terms of internal gender ID. They very much identify with both genders, again, on a sliding scale.


I haven't heard Stephanie's aguement since about 1970, and I think she may have misunderstood her Doctor, or her Doctor is living in the last century(plus some). -Celeste

Well, in all fairness to Stephanie, he (I say "he" out of respect for Stephanie) is past retirement and in his 70s. When Stephanie was a young man, or even 30 years ago during his middle years, no one had the knowledge that we have now. So Stephanie very much is a product of his generation, and sometimes it is difficult to catch up to new knowledge after a certain age. I think we all need to make allowances for this. Stephanie, I hope I didn't insult you by saying this, it's just that you are much older than the average person here and I think this does make a difference.

[DonniDarkness]

What it all boils down to is that some of us MtF crossdressers are transgendered, and some of us aren’t.Freddy, thats impossible. You may not feel internally that you are a woman, but the plain and simple fact: that you are male and crossdress in womens clothes.
Makes anyone one who Crossdresses REGULARLY for Unique Personal reasons fall in the gender spectrum of Transgender.

Until modern medicine we were all labeled Trans-vestites.

Now in modern times, Trans Women have the ability to change their bodies to make their lives happier and allow them to be who they are internally.

Now in modern times, we "CD's" have adopted the Label "Crossdresser" in its place....to somehow remove ourselves from the obvious fact that WE ARE TRANS-SOMETHING.

Even the Latin base words in our dialog about our perception on the grey area of gender all involve the same prefix: Trans

So.... someway.... somehow...if your actively taking steps to appear as the opposite gender.....you are definitively Trans-something by only the pure definition of your actions. A Cross (Trans) Dresser (Vestite)



If I have hurt, in any way, any of the members of this forum I am truly sorry.\

Apology accepted Steph, Ive been here for long enough to know your not mean spirited.... although i was a little frustrated by the post, i didnt take offense. It was more a facepalm moment of misinformation.

If the majority of the Trans/CD community disagrees with the Transgender theories that these doctors have told you.......They were not listening to whom they were "studying".

We still love you tho,
-Donni-

[Elizabeth Ann]

Freddy, thats impossible. You may not feel internally that you are a woman, but the plain and simple fact: that you are male and crossdress in womens clothes.
Makes anyone one who Crossdresses REGULARLY for Unique Personal reasons fall in the gender spectrum of Transgender.

[clip]

-Donni-

Wait. . . Are you saying that our gender is defined not by our own opinions, but by our outward appearances? Wouldn't that make gender defined by social convention, that is, the opinions of others?

Frankly, I'm not sure I understand gender as a non-physical phenomena, but I think this argument is on very shaky ground.

Liz

[DonniDarkness]

Are you saying that our gender is defined not by our own opinions, but by our outward appearances? Wouldn't that make gender defined by social convention, that is, the opinions of others?Riene said this in the post above me, and to keep the thread from being too redundant (too late now!) i chose not to reiterate what she had said but i will now, just to be understood.

"GENDER" actually has 3 components:

1. Birth anatomy (commonly referred to as a person's sex)
2. Internal gender identification.
3. Preferred gender role and presentation.

Gender is not only a physical existence but also a mental perception of ones inner-self. These three things listed above are what make up our gender based not only on "How we Feel", but also "What We Do".

If a male who does not have any form of gender variance from the CiS-Gender (Binary) Population, and he wanted to dress up, it would be Armani Suits and Rolex's....

But the fact that a male who wants to dress up nice and wear womens clothes, by definition of the own labels we have adopted (over our generation and those before us) makes this Person solely based on their actions...A MtF Transgender.


I'm not sure I understand gender as a non-physical phenomena"Sex" is the definition of differences in our biological existence as humans. "Gender" is an awareness of who we are and how we interact with the world we live in. The word "Gender" implies Roles and Social Needs/Expectations....and is not always directly connected to what birth sex an individual is.

-Donni-

[ReineD]

Wait. . . Are you saying that our gender is defined not by our own opinions, but by our outward appearances? Wouldn't that make gender defined by social convention, that is, the opinions of others?

This is pure conjecture on my part, but here goes: :)

I think it's both. We are treated differently based on the gender that others perceive we are, and I think this does affect our human development, at least while growing up. Also, how do we know that our perceived gender is similar/dissimilar to other people of the same/different sex? For example, I know and feel that I am a woman, I have a woman's body that I treasure, but how do I know that I don't feel internally the same as my brother? His temperament is similar to mine in many ways.

I can also perceive vast differences between myself and the super, ultra-girly females (the ones who wear pink and go "ewww" when they see a bug), and ultra athletic, frou-frou-less females who don't care to wear makeup and skirts. I see myself as somewhere between these two extremes, but if we are to compare how the frou-frou-less athletic woman feels to the girly-girl woman, then how do we know that they feel they are the same gender at all, even though both will say that they are without any doubt, women?

I don't think that we are solely who we think we are, since we have no way of knowing how others feel to compare and also we are not always objective about ourselves. We can be in denial, or fall prey to rationalization based on what we want or don't want vs. who we are. But most importantly, we do communicate who we are through body language and paralinguistic cues which forms the greater part of communication, and so it might be that others can pick up who we are, better than we can, at least in terms of placing us within either the male or the female gender range, no matter how we look.

Back to being who we say we are, have you noticed that some CDers identify as men, while others say they're mixed-gender, while others think they might be TS. Yet, they probably all experience similar things internally, save perhaps for the amount of dopamine released when dressing.

[suchacutie]

One point is biologically clear: Our birthsex is mapped in every one of our cells in our DNA. That is never changed, no matter what we do to the external manisfestation of that DNA (i.e. SRS).

Our gender is much more complicated. Recent studies quoted in various places on this forum and others talk about the recent understandings of the required hormonal washes in utero that are required to generate a brain whose owner we would describe as male. If those washes fail at some level, the thought processes and gender identification become more difficult to place in a single pigeon hole. In some cases the male hormonal washes are very much unsuccessful and the human with what would be considered "male" DNA has no association with the male gender assignments and really is overwhelmed by femininity...and identifies as female.

Thus, birth gender is fixed by biology. Gender is a matter of biology and socialization. Those things that we do to align our perceived gender and our bodies is called art!

IMHO..

Tina

[Foxglove]

I think it's both. We are treated differently based on the gender that others perceive we are, and I think this does affect our human development, at least while growing up. Also, how do we know that our perceived gender is similar/dissimilar to other people of the same/different sex? For example, I know and feel that I am a woman, I have a woman's body that I treasure, but how do I know that I don't feel internally the same as my brother? His temperament is similar to mine in many ways.

I can also perceive vast differences between myself and the super, ultra-girly females (the ones who wear pink and go "ewww" when they see a bug), and ultra athletic, frou-frou-less females who don't care to wear makeup and skirts. I see myself as somewhere between these two extremes, but if we are to compare how the frou-frou-less athletic woman feels to the girly-girl woman, then how do we know that they feel they are the same gender at all, even though both will say that they are without any doubt, women?

I don't think that we are solely who we think we are, since we have no way of knowing how others feel to compare and also we are not always objective about ourselves. . .

Reine, I think this is a good post. You're making some good points here, which allow me to state something that I've come to feel is valid. Often on this forum, it's suggested by GG's that we T-girls cannot possibly know what it feels like to be feminine. My question is: how do you know we can't? What does a GG feel? As you're pointing out yourself, different GG's quite possibly feel very differently about themselves and yet would (correctly) assert that they're female/feminine. But how can a GG get inside my mind/heart and know what I'm feeling? How then can she say that my feelings aren't feminine?

As a transwoman I do have a certain advantage over GG's. Having been immersed in the male world for so long, I do have a feel for what it's like to be masculine. So I do have a point of comparison. When I get out all done up, as I have been doing lately, I don't feel masculine at all. Exactly the contrary. Which is why I claim to feel feminine because I feel exactly the reverse of what I've so often felt before.

Obviously I cannot claim that I feel the same way you do. I have no way of knowing what you feel. But neither do GG's have any way of knowing what I feel, and so I believe they can't categorically deny that I feel feminine. If someone wants to say that I feel "trans-feminine" as opposed to "GG-feminine", that may or may not be true. I wouldn't bother to argue the point. I do know that I have lots of feelings that I consider "feminine", and what I'm saying here is that I think that anybody who wants to prove me wrong is going to have their work cut out for them.

Best wishes, Annabelle

[Sophie_C]

It's easy:

Gender = Mind
Sex = Physical Body

Done.

[Rianna Humble]

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) is an international, multidisciplinary, professional association whose mission is to promote evidence-based care, education, research, advocacy, public policy, and respect for transgender health.

In the glossary of the current Standards of Care (http://www.wpath.org/documents/Standards of Care V7 - 2011 WPATH.pdf), they offer certain definitions and cite authoritative publications that support these definitions. One of the authorities they cite for Gender Identitiy is a publication from 1964. The definition that they give reads as follows:


Gender identity: A person’s intrinsic sense of being male (a boy or a man), female (a girl or a woman), or an alternative gender (e.g., boygirl, girlboy, transgender, genderqueer, eunuch) (Bockting, 1999; Stoller, 1964).

They also define Gender Dysphoria thus:


Gender dysphoria: Distress that is caused by a discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and that person’s sex assigned at birth (and the associated gender role and/or primary and secondary sex characteristics) (Fisk, 1974; Knudson, De Cuypere, & Bockting, 2010b).

From this I note that for almost half a century authoritative figures in the world of health have made a difference between Sex and Gender

Other studies have confirmed a biophysical difference between cis-men and trans-women and between cis-women and trans-men especially in the size and structure of the brain

[ReineD]

Often on this forum, it's suggested by GG's that we T-girls cannot possibly know what it feels like to be feminine. My question is: how do you know we can't?

Without going back and retrieving all such comments to see how they were specifically worded, my sense is that GGs do not dispute the fact that CDers want to feel feminine. They rather balk at the statements that CDers know what it is like to BE a woman. These are two different things. When a CDer says that he feels he is a woman because he is all dressed up with makeup, the GGs dispute this because they know that to be a woman is so much more than mere adornment.

A woman has grown up being treated differently because she is a woman and she has not experienced the male privilege that men experience. She likely makes less money at her job and even though women are advancing in terms of careers, they still lag behind men in the boardroom and executive offices. If she has children (and most GGs here are married and with kids), she has also experienced pregnancy and birth with all the hormones that are released during this period of time, in addition to the hormones released during her monthly cycle. She has also likely noticed the difference between how she handles the kids and household chores, compared to her husband. And last, she has had less testosterone exposure than men, even though I am not getting into a discussion here on the effects of testosterone and estrogen on the psyche in addition to the body. So I do agree that CDers cannot possibly know what it feels like to be a woman under these circumstances and I understand what the GGs are saying.

This does not mean that male-bodied individuals cannot be nurturing, or female-bodied individuals cannot be competitive. :)

[Foxglove]

Without going back and retrieving all such comments to see how they were specifically worded, my sense is that GGs do not dispute the fact that CDers want to feel feminine. They rather balk at the statements that CDers know what it is like to BE a woman. These are two different things. When a CDer says that he feels he is a woman because he is all dressed up with makeup, the GGs dispute this because they know that to be a woman is so much more than mere adornment.

Well, if that's what they're saying, I wouldn't argue with that.

[DonniDarkness]

my sense is that GGs do not dispute the fact that CDers want to feel feminine. They rather balk at the statements that CDers know what it is like to BE a woman. These are two different things. When a CDer says that he feels he is a woman because he is all dressed up with makeup, the GGs dispute this because they know that to be a woman is so much more than mere adornment.

Well this statement is very true....but id like to add a little bit to this because it is relevant to the discussion of sex and gender, and our debate about them.

Feeling "Feminine" or "Masculine" comes from a mental awareness of your self and is probably one of the most contributing factors to your own personal Gender Identity, Be that Male or Female (Trans Prefixes withheld) we still have these emotions, that we all deem to be "masculine or feminine", because they are HUMAN EMOTIONS.

We have separated our genders for so long that i think that we overlook the fact that all humans are capable of the same emotions. Love, hate, kindness, nurturing, anger, rage...ect....all these things are what every single healthy human in the world is capable of.

We have separated our genders and biological sexes into a binary state for so long, we actually believe there is more to these emotions than just being normal human reactions.

I believe that we are all capable of these emotions without the complications of gender and sex. However, our physical bodies do separate us. There are a great many differences in our experiences solely based on our physiology. Men will never know what it is to be a Woman, nor will Women know what it is to be a Man.... But both sides have equal emotions on the mental side of who we identify as.

-Donni-

[julia marie]

Great points, ReineD. So much of "feeling like a woman" is going to be based on human experience and perceptions dating back to the earliest childhood years. I can put on a skirt, wig and makeup, and try to enhance a feminine look and feel. However all of that only moves me part of the way to feeling feminine. I'm a guy dressed as a woman, enjoying the feel of the clothing, and the experience. But if I walk down the street, I'm not viewing the world the same way as the GGs who sat next to me in elementary school a million years ago. Some people on this forum move a lot further down that line, and i assume they get closer to the true feelings of a woman (through surgery, hormones, counseling, etc.), but do even they achieve the same feeling and perspective? They become women after having lived as a male for a number of years, maybe decades (and as a woman trapped in a male body). I'm curious (and would love to hear from them) if/how they know that they truly have the feelings and perspectives of a woman who was raised and treated (for good or bad) as a female right from the formative years. Or, are they just grateful to have escaped their trap and happy to be accepted as women?

[Foxglove]

I'm curious (and would love to hear from them) if/how they know that they truly have the feelings and perspectives of a woman who was raised and treated (for good or bad) as a female right from the formative years. Or, are they just grateful to have escaped their trap and happy to be accepted as women?

Julia, speaking for myself, there's no way I would claim that I "truly have the feelings and perspectives of a woman who was raised and treated (for good or bad) as a female right from the formative years." Given that I didn't have that experience, why would I claim that I have the same feelings as someone who did?

But as a transwoman, I say that I do have feminine feelings. How do they compare to the feminine feelings of a GG? Who's to say? I don't think anybody can. Not unless they have some way of getting inside the hearts of lots of different people.

[ReineD]

... but do even they achieve the same feeling and perspective? They become women after having lived as a male for a number of years, maybe decades (and as a woman trapped in a male body). I'm curious (and would love to hear from them) if/how they know that they truly have the feelings and perspectives of a woman who was raised and treated (for good or bad) as a female right from the formative years.

Honestly, I think this would be AWESOME! For a TS to live stealth in either gender (MtF or FtM ... after hormones, surgeries, legal name and gender-marker change, etc), yet having been socialized as the gender assigned to them as birth. After transition they may not have the same historical experiences as a native-gender, but certainly if they are stealth they are treated as the target gender by others and so they can develop a perspective from that point on.

What a perspective such a person would have! Enviable, really.

I saw a video once from a beautiful young MtF TS who said that when she was a guy, he did everything he could to not let others know who she was. And then when she became a girl, she did everything she could to kill off any remnant of guy. But then some years later, she brought it all together and honored all of who she was. I thought this was admirable.

[Rianna Humble]

Julia, I have to agree with Annabelle that none of us can say we have the feelings and perspective of a woman who was raised and treated as a female right from the formative years. But I would have to dispute your assertion that I became a woman after living as a male for a number of decades (in my case).

I don't know how a male lives. I tried through observation to emulate the way that a man behaves, but I'm not sure how close I came to getting it right. On the odd occasion that I was included in a "lad's night out" I never managed to completely emulate their behaviour and I certainly did not feel what they appeared to be feeling. I have never known how to express affection and love as a man because I have never identified as one.

When I got close enough for women to confide in me, they would tell me how easy it was to talk to me because I was like an older sister to them. No-one ever said they looked on me as an older brother. When I would help out with young children, people would often say I would make a good mother (this before my transition).

I don't understand how men feel, other women relate to me as a woman (even when I was pretending to be a man) but can I say my feelings are identical to someone who has experienced growing up from a little girl into a woman? Almost certainly not, because I was denied those experiences.

[Eryn]

...A woman has grown up being treated differently because she is a woman and she has not experienced the male privilege that men experience. She likely makes less money at her job and even though women are advancing in terms of careers, they still lag behind men in the boardroom and executive offices. If she has children (and most GGs here are married and with kids), she has also experienced pregnancy and birth with all the hormones that are released during this period of time, in addition to the hormones released during her monthly cycle. She has also likely noticed the difference between how she handles the kids and household chores, compared to her husband.

Reine, whenever I see the term "male privilege" I never see mentioned the "male privilege" of being involuntarily sent to other countries where some of those males are killed in gruesome ways while others are merely crippled, physically or mentally. To this day in the US, the draft only applies to males, a gender inequity that seems to have been overlooked by women's rights organizations. Until one has watched a lottery on TV where the highest prize is ultimately your own life one cannot truly understand "male privilege."

[arbon]

Reine, whenever I see the term "male privilege" I never see mentioned the "male privilege" of being involuntarily sent to other countries where some of those males are killed in gruesome ways while others are merely crippled, physically or mentally. To this day in the US, the draft only applies to males, a gender inequity that seems to have been overlooked by women's rights organizations. Until one has watched a lottery on TV where the highest prize is ultimately your own life one cannot truly understand "male privilege."

And men set it up that way.

[xdressed]

The way I see it if pretty much how most others on here seem to as well, that your sex is a matter of the physical normally based on what you were born as and gender is an emotional identity

[ReineD]

Reine, whenever I see the term "male privilege" I never see mentioned the "male privilege" of being involuntarily sent to other countries where some of those males are killed in gruesome ways while others are merely crippled, physically or mentally.

Had women been running the show, I don't think we would have had any wars. lol. Also throughout history, if any country had sent their women out for combat, they would have been no match for the superior size and strength of enemy men. Still, having so many men die is horrible, as were the women who suffered rape at the hands of the victors throughout historical times, and who had no legal or property rights after their husbands were killed. Yes, the death toll on men is horrible as is the way that women are treated in the non-Western world.

But war, rape, and getting noses and ears cut off aside, even in our more gender equal society men still hold the upper hand. Women still are only earning three quarters of male incomes (http://www.statista.com/statistics/203459/female-to-male-earnings-ratio-of-workers-in-the-us/). And there are still men around who feel they are superior to women intellectually and otherwise. THIS is the male privilege that I am thinking of. The type of male privilege that causes a man's voice to be heard above a woman's, even today, unless a woman is very strong, in which case she is considered a b*tch. Even today. :p

[kimdl93]

But war, rape, and getting noses and ears cut off aside, even in our more gender equal society men still hold the upper hand. Women still are only earning three quarters of male incomes (http://www.statista.com/statistics/203459/female-to-male-earnings-ratio-of-workers-in-the-us/). And there are still men around who feel they are superior to women intellectually and otherwise. THIS ...

While what Reine says remains true, the tide is turning. Women , have much higher graduation rates in High School and College, now make up more than 1/2 of college students, significantly more than 1/2 of medical and law school students, and are moving into mid level leadership roles in management both in private sector and government. There's reason to believe that adolescent males are lagging significantly behind their female counterparst and the gap will broaden in the next few years. Despite the pay biases and backwards attitudes towards women in positions of authority, that is the future.

[abigailf]

I thought this graphic might help this discussion.

194893

More information at: http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/

[Foxglove]

Reine, whenever I see the term "male privilege" I never see mentioned the "male privilege" of being involuntarily sent to other countries where some of those males are killed in gruesome ways while others are merely crippled, physically or mentally. To this day in the US, the draft only applies to males, a gender inequity that seems to have been overlooked by women's rights organizations. Until one has watched a lottery on TV where the highest prize is ultimately your own life one cannot truly understand "male privilege."


And men set it up that way.

You know, Arbon, I've always found this a curious argument. When I was young I came pretty close to getting drafted. I didn't miss out on Vietnam by much. I'm always glad that I did. If I'd got sent to Nam I wouldn't have lasted two minutes. And I find it a curious argument that I wouldn't have had any complaint, since after all, it was other men who got me into that fix.

Consider this: suppose I read about a murder, and I comment, "No big deal. It's just one black guy killing another." Or suppose I read about two young women who assaulted a middle-aged woman on Dublin's main street and actually set her hair on fire, and I comment, "That's just women hurting another woman." Or suppose I read about an English woman who basically starved and tortured her little girl to death over a period of months, and I comment, "That's just one female hurting another."

In all these cases, I think people would agree I'm being fairly insensitive because I'm not drawing any distinction between the innocent and the guilty--but especially because I'm stripping people of their humanity by not treating them as individuals, but rather as faceless members of a group, the result being, by lumping all those members together, that I'm actually making the victim as guilty as the criminal.

And yet have you ever heard someone say, "But that's just men hurting other men!" And that's what we're saying when we say, "And men set it up that way."

I remember the sinking feeling that I felt when I got my draft card in the mail--the realization that somebody owned me and my life. My body, my choice? Not if you're a young lad while there's a war on. And if you do end up dead or maimed, you have no complaint because it was men who did it to you.

As I say, I find this a curious argument.

Best wishes, Annabelle

[ReineD]

While what Reine says remains true, the tide is turning.

This is true, but it is only recent. Women still have a long way to go, if you consider all the cultures on this planet and even in our own.

[arbon]

You know, Arbon, I've always found this a curious argument. When I was young I came pretty close to getting drafted. I didn't miss out on Vietnam by much. I'm always glad that I did. If I'd got sent to Nam I wouldn't have lasted two minutes. And I find it a curious argument that I wouldn't have had any complaint, since after all, it was other men who got me into that fix.

Consider this: suppose I read about a murder, and I comment, "No big deal. It's just one black guy killing another." Or suppose I read about two young women who assaulted a middle-aged woman on Dublin's main street and actually set her hair on fire, and I comment, "That's just women hurting another woman." Or suppose I read about an English woman who basically starved and tortured her little girl to death over a period of months, and I comment, "That's just one female hurting another."

.

What ? I did not say killing was not a big deal. I don't get your point.

Eryn thinks the draft is something that women don't consider when the idea of male privilege comes up and he does not seem to think that is fair. All I am saying is that the last time we had a draft it was pretty much a mans world and men were calling all the shots. I think there would be less violence and military need if women had more say still today.

[DonniDarkness]

this argument of violence, military conflict, and male/female privilege is incredibly sexist in and of itself. From either gender. Violence is not privileged to sex or gender, we are all as incapable or capable of this.

There was a time in history when women did have power over men, armies, slavery, and wealth. History always repeats itself.

The thought of women being less violent and have a lack of strife with their peers is a completely invalid point to me......because i grew up with four sisters.....

-Donni-

[Foxglove]

What ? I did not say killing was not a big deal. I don't get your point.

Yeah, Arbon, you didn't get the point. Maybe you should read my post again.


Eryn thinks the draft is something that women don't consider when the idea of male privilege comes up and he does not seem to think that is fair.

And I'd agree with Eryn. There's a lot of talk about "male privilege", and Eryn's pointing out that there's another side to the question that needs to be considered. Now there's no denying that woman have special problems, but Eryn's pointing out that men also have special problems, one of them being that they're the ones subject to the draft. Now, as Eryn has said, this is blatant sexual discrimination, and it's noteworthy that it's a type of discrimination that women's rights organizations have never complained about.


All I am saying is that the last time we had a draft it was pretty much a mans world and men were calling all the shots.

And this is where you missed my point, and this is where, I think, you're going wrong. You're lumping all men together, as if all men are the same. Men aren't all the same. There's all different types--rich ones, poor ones, professional ones, working class ones, white ones, black ones, brown ones, educated ones, uneducated ones, etc. And though it's true that some men are calling the shots, it's patently false that all of them are.

Look at the flaw in your argument concerning the draft during Vietnam: you've got a young guy who's being drafted. He doesn't want to go, but he's not being given any choice. He's obviously not calling the shots, because if he were, he wouldn't be going. Your argument says in effect, he's a man, therefore he's calling the shots, and that's why he's being sent to Vietnam even though he doesn't want to go.

During Vietnam there were plenty of guys protesting against the war and against the draft. Many of them ended up in Vietnam against their will, or they ended up in prison or Canada or Sweden. Not all men are the same, and not all men are calling the shots.

If we want to go on from here, Eryn's mentioned one problem men have, and I can add another: men are quite often lumped together as a group, as you're doing. The result of that is that they often get treated as if they're all the same, and that's quite often unfair. E.g., domestic violence is routinely blamed on "men", as if all men are involved in it, as if all men are women-haters who are willing to use violence on them to keep them in their place. The truth is, as umpteen studies on domestic violence show, that it's actually only a small minority of men who are guilty of it. But lump all men together, then you can claim that they're all guilty of it, and there are certain people in this world who have an interest in doing that. And they're not all man-hating feminists by any means.


I think there would be less violence and military need if women had more say still today.

This can be debated. During Vietnam, fewer American women than men supported the war, but there wasn't a huge difference, and generally speaking it was about half of American women who supported it, my mother being one of them.

Which brings us back to Eryn's original point, from which we can extrapolate: women have the luxury of supporting a war they believe in without having to get involved in it themselves, and that gives other women the luxury of taking the moral high ground: it's only men who fight wars, ergo, it's only men who are violent, aggressive brutes. (Even if these men were drafted, hence forced to be violent against their will.)

This is why I agree with Eryn: men do have some special problems. It's just that in the midst of all our talk about "male privilege", this isn't always taken into account.

[arbon]

How many wars started by men? How many wars started by women? Maybe if women here and around the world had more power in the governments and society it would be different. But its that male privilege keeps men in control and for the most part directing the course of events here and everywhere. Does not mean that all men are bad, it does not mean that they like to fight or anything else. Thats my perspective of the way it is.

[Foxglove]

How many wars started by men? How many wars started by women? Maybe if women here and around the world had more power in the governments and society it would be different. But its that male privilege keeps men in control and for the most part directing the course of events here and everywhere. Does not mean that all men are bad, it does not mean that they like to fight or anything else. Thats my perspective of the way it is.

Sorry, but here you're clearly wrong--at least as far as Western democracies are concerned. Here in Ireland, the DÃ*il (the parliament) is normally around 15% female--and of course women are constantly complaining about the blatant sexism of it. But it's not sexism at all. Women have half the votes, and so they have the potential to elect half the TD's (members of parliament) if they wanted to. They just don't want to.

I kept tabs during the last election, and so did some other people. Now of the women who ran, pretty the same percentage of them were elected as of the men who ran. The problem is that not nearly as many women run as men. This can be explained by two different surveys of women that I've seen in recent years. In one of them about 75% of Irish women said that they weren't really interested in a challenging career--and politics is certainly a challenging career. In the other survey, only 11% of Irish women said that they consider politics very important--so they don't get into it because they're simply not interested.

The result is that the Irish parliament is heavily male dominated. But this isn't male privilege. It's simply women not exercising a right in the fashion they could exercise it. In other words, it's a result of female choice.

[DonniDarkness]

I despise how this discussion has turned into a debate on sexism. It was thought provoking and a great discussion on the differences between gender ID and BIO Sex....now its just a bunch of finger pointing based on personal animosity with another group of people.

I also despise how ALL Men are portrayed as evil warmongering politicians......not all of us are sexist bigots who wish to control the worlds opportunity for equality.

Get back on topic or start a new thread.

-Donni-

[Foxglove]

I also despise how ALL Men are portrayed as evil warmongering politicians......not all of us are sexist bigots who wish to control the worlds opportunity for equality.
-Donni-

Well, that's kind of what I'm saying about men.

[Eryn]

Had women been running the show, I don't think we would have had any wars. lol.

Ummm... Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Isabel Perón. Each made frequent use of their military forces.


Also throughout history, if any country had sent their women out for combat, they would have been no match for the superior size and strength of enemy men.

Hmm, this seems to be a bit sexist. A 5'2" 105 pound man will not be as effective a soldier as a 5"10" 160 pound woman, yet the woman is completely immune from being forced into the military. The "physical ability" requirements were portrayed by women's organizations as discriminatory when they were talking about women becoming police officers and firefighters but somehow they are still considered valid when talking about women subject to involuntary military service? That's having one's cake and eating it too!


But war, rape, and getting noses and ears cut off aside, even in our more gender equal society men still hold the upper hand. Women still are only earning three quarters of male incomes (http://www.statista.com/statistics/203459/female-to-male-earnings-ratio-of-workers-in-the-us/).

I don't recall any woman being forced to be a teacher or nurse. Virtually every field is now open to women and women are even given special encouragement to move into higher paying fields. I left a previous career in which men were legally held back so that more women could advance into management roles. More women go to college than men and they receive more degrees. If women continue to voluntarily go into traditionally low-paying fields how can men be blamed?


All I am saying is that the last time we had a draft it was pretty much a mans world and men were calling all the shots.

The US still has a draft. Right now, in 2013. Every day, 18 year old males have to register for the draft in the US. They are then subject to being taken from their homes and sent out to die whenever the government feels the need. No woman need fear this.

Nobody has been conscripted since Vietnam, but with the memory of that draft fading and the needs of the military for skilled people growing it is only a matter of time. They aren't keeping registration around for nothing.

[Rianna Humble]

Sorry, but here you're clearly wrong--at least as far as Western democracies are concerned. Here in Ireland, the DÃ*il (the parliament) is normally around 15% female--and of course women are constantly complaining about the blatant sexism of it. But it's not sexism at all. Women have half the votes, and so they have the potential to elect half the TD's (members of parliament) if they wanted to. They just don't want to.

Given that they can only choose between the endorsed candidates, what does the gender of the person voting in the election have to do with the sexism that keeps the number of women candidates way down?


I kept tabs during the last election, and so did some other people. Now of the women who ran, pretty the same percentage of them were elected as of the men who ran. The problem is that not nearly as many women run as men.

As someone who has seen this on the inside of English politics and via family on the inside of Irish politics, I can tell you that the problem is not how many women want to stand for parliament but how many get selected by the men who make the choices. Even before the local parties get a say, potential candidates have to be agreed by the political party and that is where there is a massive sexist bias.


Ummm... Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, Isabel Perón. Each made frequent use of their military forces.

Golda Meir resigned as Prime Minister after failing to prevent a group of Arab states from attacking Israel in the Yom Kippur War even though a commission of enquiry found that her prompt action had prevented much more widespread conflict. She did not initiate any wars.

Indira Ghandi supported freedom for the people of Bangladesh from their remote rulers in West Pakistan and also followed poor advice from her ministers in allowing federal troops to quell a secession in Amritsar. Unfortunately for her, the troops turned it into a massacre and she was ultimately responsible. However, I don't think that that qualifies as "frequent use"

Isabel Peron did apparently authorise the army to use force against warring factions who were threatening to destroy Argentina, yet a 2007 attempt by Argentina to have her extradited from Spain to face charges of crimes against humanity failed in the Spanish courts. That same army had already been plotting the military coup that ousted her from office. I'm not sure that you could qualify this as "frequent use" either.

Indeed, IMNSHO none of your examples disproves Reine's contention that with women in charge there would be fewer wars.

[ReineD]

Eryn, I'll second Rianna's response with regards to the female heads of state that you mentioned.

Re the 5'2" 105 pound man vs. the 5"10" 160 pound woman: I was pointing out that universally, men have superior size and physical strength than women. This is a biological reality. And so in times past when combat was more face-to-face, armies of women would not have won against the men.

Re the current advancement of women in degrees obtained and in the work force: this is true. We've come a long way since the 1950s/60s and prior. But, it will take more than 50/60 years to completely eradicate gender inequality that has existed for a long time. Hopefully by the time our daughters retire, we will have achieved this. Did you see the link that I posted about the 2011 disparity in female/male earnings ratios from the Census Bureau?

http://www.statista.com/statistics/203459/female-to-male-earnings-ratio-of-workers-in-the-us/

And, this is not even speaking of the dominance that men still have over women in other areas, such as the Middle East, India, China, etc, even though it is beginning to improve there too.

So I'm afraid that male privilege still exists, especially when you take a global average.

[litangel]

I feel sad about conversations that become man vs. woman, which this one has to some extent.

About 4000 years ago when tribes began warring on one another. they tried different strategies to survive. One of the most successful (although not necessarily one that actually made people happy) was to have one gender, the males, accentuate being strong, smart, and out of touch with their feelings, so they could do the brutal things needed for war, the other half, the women, raised the children, and made life happy enough for the warriors that they were willing to do what they had to, to make the tribe survive. A lot of the pain that has happened since, was not men's fault, it was not women.s fault, They were both just playing a role.
The world is beginning to change, thank god. And the roles for both genders have become more flexible, although much more slowly for men.
The world would be better if men did not make all the decisions, not because men are bad, but because the more types of wisdom available, the more we can build a world of peace.
Both men and women have suffered from the constriction of their roles. It is not useful to argue about who suffered more, but for each one of us to see the people in their lives as individuals and see their joy and their pain about their gender experiences as well as any other parts of their lives.
Growing up female, and growing up male are pretty different experiences. But growing up fitting in your gender role, and not fitting are different too. Again, let's drop labels and stereotypes, let;s all work for equality now, and let go of resentments about what happened in the past, as best we can.
Out souls are not pink and blue, we are just human, each with our own unique history. If you believe in past lives, we all have been on both sides of the man/woman thing anyway.
I give thanks that with all its imperfection, that I live in a time where the walls between the genders are breaking down.
If this was a bit rant-y, I apologize.

[Foxglove]

Given that they can only choose between the endorsed candidates, what does the gender of the person voting in the election have to do with the sexism that keeps the number of women candidates way down?

As someone who has seen this on the inside of English politics and via family on the inside of Irish politics, I can tell you that the problem is not how many women want to stand for parliament but how many get selected by the men who make the choices. Even before the local parties get a say, potential candidates have to be agreed by the political party and that is where there is a massive sexist bias.


Sorry, Rianna, I can't go along with this. Even though the number of women running is low compared to the number of men, women could still have lots more women TD's than they have if they simply voted for the women candidates who are running. There were lots of women who failed to get elected. In the constituency neighboring mine in the last election, there was a woman and a man running for the same party. It was the man who got elected. Now if women who support that party had all voted for the woman, they could have a had a woman TD from their party. But they didn't vote for her.

People don't have to be nominated by a party in order to run. You are allowed to run as an independent. There were about 10 times as many male independent candidates as females in the election in question. In one constituency there were three women who decided to run as independents because as it was, there wasn't a single woman on the ballot there. Not a one of these three got elected.

As it stands, it makes little sense for political parties to nominate women since there's little demand for women. If there were more demand, parties would nominate them because they want to win seats. If I'm wrong about that, if parties are truly so sexist that they'll always refuse to nominate women in adequate numbers, women could always organize their own party and nominate as many candidates as they like. Men have organized parties. There's nothing preventing women from doing the same.

The fact is this: women have half the votes. They could have half the seats if they wanted them. But they don't use their votes to win those seats. What it comes down is that women in general simply don't care enough about the seats. But those women who would like to have the seats--instead of complaining about male sexism, why not go to the women voters and urge them to vote for women? Then the men could be every bit as sexist as they're made out to be and they still couldn't prevent women from getting half the seats. Women have the power to gain half the seats, but they don't use the power they have. If they choose not to use that power, what complaint do they have?

Suppose half the voters were trans. Would we really have any complaint if we only had 15% of the seats in the parliament? I guarantee you this: I wouldn't be complaining about transphobic cispeople who wouldn't give us our due. I'd be screaming my head off on forums like this one: "Transpeople! Get out and there and run! And get up off your lazy bohunkuses and get out and vote for trans candidates, for crying out loud!" And as much as I hate politics, I'd be running myself.

Sorry, Rianna, women have no complaint here. If they refuse to take what they have the power to take, they only have themselves to blame.

Best wishes, Annabelle

[Rianna Humble]

Sorry, Rianna, I can't go along with this. Even though the number of women running is low compared to the number of men, women could still have lots more women TD's than they have if they simply voted for the women candidates who are running. There were lots of women who failed to get elected. In the constituency neighboring mine in the last election, there was a woman and a man running for the same party. It was the man who got elected. Now if women who support that party had all voted for the woman, they could have a had a woman TD from their party. But they didn't vote for her.

In the STV system it is true that there is more emphasis on personality than on pure party allegiance, but it also has its downside too and I'm afraid your simple arithmetic would not stand up. Unless the party she represented has over 67% of the voters, then the women who support the party probably number less than 1/3 of all the voters. In that case, 2/3 would be voting for people other than the woman candidate in question. Even if she got a high number of first preference votes, the transfer of 2nd and subsequent votes would also count against her. In a 5 seat constituency, that may be enough to get 1 woman for every 4 men. In smaller constituencies she might as well forget it.

As your other example shows, independents don't do well in general elections.

I have a friend who was selected by our Party for the last Euro elections, but she was put on a list in a region where we were unlikely to get more than 1 MEP elected and the sitting MEP was top of the list. This is with a progressive party that actually is doing something (although nowhere near enough) to combat the built-in male privilege in our selection system.

[NicoleScott]

OK OK there's "male privilege". It's shrinking, but still there.
Let's not pretend there's not also "female privilege".

[Rianna Humble]

Let's not pretend there's not also "female privilege".

You are absoluytely right, Nicole. We have the privilege of being considered incompetent at anything which requires any manual dexterity.

We have the privilege in a meeting of being shouted down or told by a male colleague "Get on with it, we haven't got all night" the first time that we contribute anything.

We have the privilege of seeing the men do anything but what we have suggested until they prove to themselves that nothing else works and then of being asked "so why didn't you suggest this?".

We have the privilege of people assuming we are always late for everything even when the records show that despite travelling further than anyone else we have never been late even once.

These are just a few of the female privileges that I have experienced in the last 5 weeks.

[NicoleScott]

That was a lame attempt to deny by deflecting, Rianna. Get real.

[Foxglove]

In the STV system it is true that there is more emphasis on personality than on pure party allegiance, but it also has its downside too and I'm afraid your simple arithmetic would not stand up. Unless the party she represented has over 67% of the voters, then the women who support the party probably number less than 1/3 of all the voters. In that case, 2/3 would be voting for people other than the woman candidate in question. Even if she got a high number of first preference votes, the transfer of 2nd and subsequent votes would also count against her. In a 5 seat constituency, that may be enough to get 1 woman for every 4 men. In smaller constituencies she might as well forget it.

Rianna, I haven't a clue what you're talking about here. A party doesn't need anywhere near 67% of the vote to get a seat in a given constituency. In a 5-seater a quota is only 1/6 of the valid poll, that is less than 17% of the vote. If a party puts up two candidates in that constituency and one of them gets elected, that means they've got a quota there. If it's a choice of a man and a woman, let the women vote as a bloc for the woman candidate. That'll put her ahead of her male colleague, because not all men vote for men. If she hasn't got a quota on her first-preference votes, her male colleague's transfers will be enough to get her there.

In the election in question there were a number of constituencies in which women lost out to men of the same party for this reason--women don't vote as a bloc for women, which they could do if they really wanted more women in the parliament.


As your other example shows, independents don't do well in general elections.

Yes, that's because people don't vote for them. As I mentioned, three independent women candidates and not a one of them elected. This was in a 5-seater. With 50% of the vote, women had enough votes to elect two of them and possibly all three of them, depending on transfers. But not one of them was elected. This is because women don't make it their top priority to elect women, which is what they need to do if they really want more women in the parliament.

Imagine if two or three of these women had got elected. It would have sent a clear signal to the parties in that constituency that women wanted more women. But that signal is never sent. Until it is, parties have no reason to put up more women candidates. Why put up candidates that aren't wanted and can't win?

[DonniDarkness]

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5065261905282495&pid=1.7

This gets nothing done on either side of inequality. Male privilege...Female privelidge.....BAH!

It is a wasted argument because society is changing rapidly. In the last 20 years social constraints on gender have changed greatly.....It is the older generation that is still hanging on to both the idea of sexism and also the idea that they are being held back by someone else...

Opportunity is there. If you make excuses thats your problem not anyone elses.

Quit pointing the damn finger and use that energy to move in a positive direction.

-Donni-

[ReluctantDebutant]

What we have been guaranteed as an equalization of opportunity. But what is being lamented here is the lack of equalization in outcome. Yes the raw data shows that men earn far more money than women but that is just the raw data taking everything into account. But if you sift through that data and find the man and women with the same education the same amount of experience in the same career the earnings between men and women become equal and in some cases women earn more than men. So why does the raw data show man earning more because people tend to earn more late in their careers after decades of experience. Many women tend to leave or suspend their careers and their mid-20s and 30s for a choice they deem much more important than their career, motherhood. Yes some men do stop work for their families but then far far less numbers than women do.

As for politics it all comes down to ideology more than anything else. A recent political figure in my country, Sarah Palin, was despised and still is by many feminists, a group of people dedicated to seeing women rising power, this shows that even to such a group ideology trumps a person's plumbing. A lot of women do get elected when they run because they have shown the voters that they are qualified. The lack of numbers not due to oppression but due to a lack of volunteers. Men and women just seem to make different life decisions than one another. These different choices will always make demographic will statistics look unequal but it is no evidence of inequality.

[ReineD]

So why does the raw data show man earning more because people tend to earn more late in their careers after decades of experience. Many women tend to leave or suspend their careers and their mid-20s and 30s for a choice they deem much more important than their career, motherhood. Yes some men do stop work for their families but then far far less numbers than women do.

Also, among women my age, few have achieved equal status in terms of advancement. Boardrooms and executive offices are still dominated by men who earn the associated salaries and bonuses, although admittedly this is changing and it will continue to change.

I'm in my 50s. I am part of a generation where male privilege was alive and well and it went beyond salaries. This colors my perception since it is my personal reality.

[Eryn]

...Indeed, IMNSHO none of your examples disproves Reine's contention that with women in charge there would be fewer wars.

Reine's contention was that with women in charge there would be no wars, not fewer wars. The three examples I cited easily disproves that. Meir could arguably have caused the war by presenting a weak appearance to Israel's aggressors. The other two actively used their military to put down opposition to their rule. They acted pretty much as a male would have given the same situation. Blaming their actions on "poor advice" wouldn't wash with a male commander in chief and shouldn't apply to a female either.


Re the 5'2" 105 pound man vs. the 5"10" 160 pound woman: I was pointing out that universally, men have superior size and physical strength than women.

I think you mean "on average," because, as I pointed out men are not universally larger than women. Regardless, there is no equity in a large, strong, women being given an automatic pass while a smaller, weaker man is sent out to die. In our modern age of warfare size is actually a detriment in many military jobs, yet for some reason women aren't clamoring to rectify the striking inequity made apparent to every 18-year-old male in the US.


Re the current advancement of women in degrees obtained and in the work force: this is true. We've come a long way since the 1950s/60s and prior. But, it will take more than 50/60 years to completely eradicate gender inequality that has existed for a long time. Hopefully by the time our daughters retire, we will have achieved this. Did you see the link that I posted about the 2011 disparity in female/male earnings ratios from the Census Bureau?

http://www.statista.com/statistics/203459/female-to-male-earnings-ratio-of-workers-in-the-us/

Yes, I saw it, but again men cannot be held responsible for woman choosing to go into lower-paying fields or for choices made decades ago. I made a choice to move from a higher paying job to a lower-paying job but I don't have any convenient scapegoat to blame for my salary reduction except myself.

Women now easily outpace men in the number of degrees awarded which means that these younger educated women are outearning less-educated men. This fact, not being so politically correct, is buried under a mountain of data for older workers.

[ReineD]

Reine's contention was that with women in charge there would be no wars, not fewer wars.

I was not precise with my language since it is apparent that women have not been in charge. I was thinking about the overwhelmingly predominant male leadership in this world's history, and I did not take the time to research the handful of female leaders we're had in comparison, nor the political climate they were in which you must admit was a male dominated climate they needed to survive in, nor did I make an analysis of their preponderance for war compared to their male counterparts. lol My point was that if women and ONLY women had been in charge throughout our human history, I think that things would have been different. But, this is so far out of historical reality that my statement can only be a very loose conjecture.



I think you mean "on average," because, as I pointed out men are not universally larger than women. Regardless, there is no equity in a large, strong, women being given an automatic pass while a smaller, weaker man is sent out to die. In our modern age of warfare size is actually a detriment in many military jobs, yet for some reason women aren't clamoring to rectify the striking inequity made apparent to every 18-year-old male in the US.

I agree, and hopefully there will be gender equality when it comes to the draft too. There are more women than ever joining the armed forces now, in fact there are even female casualties. And in the Middle East I gather that female soldiers are more effective in dealing with the native women there (due to their patriarchal laws) than are the males. The change in attitude about female draft is slow though, since you've got to admit that up until very recently, males dominated. Things don't change overnight, just as they haven't in the business world.

But I've got to wonder how the armed forces will deal with the biological reality of pregnancy. Not everyone who is drafted goes out to the front right away, many people live on bases with their families, and even people who are deployed have R&R leaves. If men are allowed to have sex while on base or on R&R, then women should be allowed too. How ethical is it to her unborn child, to send a pregnant woman into a war zone? Maybe the answer is to enforce a rule that every woman who is enlisted must take birth control. But then this would wreak havoc among the women who feel that taking birth control or the morning after pill is against their religion? Just saying, there's a lot more to consider since there are biological differences between the sexes.



Yes, I saw it, but again men cannot be held responsible for woman choosing to go into lower-paying fields or for choices made decades ago. I made a choice to move from a higher paying job to a lower-paying job but I don't have any convenient scapegoat to blame for my salary reduction except myself.

Women now easily outpace men in the number of degrees awarded which means that these younger educated women are outearning less-educated men. This fact, not being so politically correct, is buried under a mountain of data for older workers.

Eryn, If you took a physical count of CEOs, CFAs, board members, the wheelers and dealers in the business world, you would see a disproportionately high number of men. This is not just because women choose not to follow this career path. It is because of the glass ceiling. It is taking a long time for women to break through due to male privilege.

[missmars]

I think sex identity and gender identity may different in some people.

[Rianna Humble]

Yes, your "sex identity" is about what bits you were born with (e.g. pink booties or blue booties)

Your "gender identity" is about your inner understanding of who you are.

In my case I was born with the blue booties physical characteristics but a female brain so my inner understanding of who I am has always been at odds with my "sex identity". I am not and have never been of the male gender, unfortunately when I was born some time before the last ice age, they only judged by what colour booties.