Question about diversity/inclusion language

[dirty ethel rackham]

7 hours ago, maize said:

Should people trying to teach phonics pay less attention to phonics in order to shoulder this new burden? How many of other people's matters-to-me burdens should they continue to shoulder, dropping bits of phonics-teaching focus and effort for every one of these new burdens?

 

How is this a new burden?  If you can learn someone's name, you can learn their pronouns. 

Like @regentrude mentioned, if it is someone you have known a while, it takes more effort to retrain your brain.  BTDT with my transgender child (who was a they/them before fully identifying as being female. And has gone by several different names.)   After 10 years, I still slip on occasion, but I think she finally understands that it comes from the same place as calling my husband my dog's name.  

If my hairdresser (who I see maybe 6 times a year) can remember that I have a trans child and can remember her latest name, I think the rest of society can make a wee bit of effort.  

6 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

 

I’m not who this is addressed to but ….

In this specific scenario, I’m very done with the entire movement that seems hellbent on obliterating that the female sex actually exists.  That “equality” always seems to actually mean either females should be like males (and the worst of males at that) or just erase sex entirely.  And no, I do not have much empathy or caring for that perspective.

 

Who is obliterating the female sex?  This whole conversation is about either 1) calling people how they want to be called (my trans child identifies as female) and 2) not assuming a (usually male) gender to refer to a job or group of people.  Using a gender is automatically excluding people.

Using female terms to refer to certain jobs many times was used as a prejorative  ... to make that job seem less important.  Using male terms to refer to certain jobs makes it harder for females to be accepted.  

[Murphy101]

3 hours ago, Ginevra said:

Is it utterly ridiculous? Or is the thing that is ridiculous the social mandate to pretend that most people are not the gender that goes with their chromosomes and external genitalia? It’s right there as an assumption in the phrase “sex assigned at birth”. I have been thinking about that phrase a lot recently. Why is this the phrase “we” use now? When a pregnant woman goes to her 20-week appointment and wants to know the baby’s sex, does the doctor say, “according to the sonogram, I predict that this baby will be assigned ‘boy’ at birth, given that there is a p*nis visible on the sono”? When a pregnant mom does a gender reveal party, is the cake going to spill out green m&ms that say, “Not sure until the sex is assigned at birth”? Even my YA daughter said she thinks it’s kind of funny that, in a world where we say we’re trying to break down gender stereotypes, people do gender reveals and baby showers with all the things present. 
 

I think it is less harmful for kids all around to understand that most people are born with a gender that matches their chromosomes and genitalia. Much less confusing than thinking lots and lots of people are born with the wrong body; you know how kids are; once they know something is possible they start wondering if *this* is why they feel so uncomfortable. 
 

Growing up is uncomfortable; it always and forever has been. I grew up with people who gravitated towards things more typical of the opposite gender but they grew into adult versions of the same gender they always were. They became men who like to cross-stitch or women who dig small engine repair; in a couple of cases, gay, but in no cases deciding they needed to change all the plumbing and their pronouns and name. 

I do not think it is ridiculous at all. Because I have seen it in action too. I’ve seen it in youth groups, public schools, private schools, colleges. 

It’s very much one labeling extreme to another labeling extreme. 

[Not_a_Number]

29 minutes ago, KSera said:

I will correct the first part of  this, because it’s not accurate to say “most” will try to kill themselves anyways (and gosh but that sounds so flip and casual 😢).  But you’re also correct that the transition does not cure this, and the only large, long-term study on this showed that those who transitioned had a higher suicide rate in the long run 😢.  We have an entirely different population now, so we have absolutely zero long term data on what will happen with this new cohort.

Gosh. That's scary. Can you cite the study? 

[Sneezyone]

4 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

I just want to return to the notion that this ISN’T just about pronouns and LGBTQIA+ people, no matter how hard those desperately seeking a featured spot on AITA want to make it so.

Inclusive/universal language is an attempt, however flawed, to include. Whether or not your goal is to exclude, make children  uncomfortable, or verbally beat adults in the workplace over the head with disdain, you can always exercise your authoriTAY and call things whatever you want. Just don’t be surprised if you are doing it from the comfort of your own kitchen table, sans paycheck. Ultimately, the impact of your choices will win out over your intent.

I’m quoting myself on this point b/c about 12/13 years ago, a friend of the family (wealthy Caucasian woman) was distraught and complaining to my mother b/c her spouse lost his chief of surgery job to an Indian immigrant. The woman’s husband had been counseled multiple times about his dismissive/rude interactions with others, generally non-white employees, but also women. She never thought they’d actually fire his butt for reasons that never made sense to me. They did. He was unceremoniously replaced, badge deactivated and escorted out, and no one batted an eyelash or expressed sorrow.

[Melissa Louise]

Lol, nobody is sacking me because I'm not centering enbies. 

Nice fantasy for y'all, though. 

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

Basically, you have no respect for human diversity unless it co-signs your callousness.

There’s born male or female and rarely there is born with neither or both.  These are biological facts that are not based on feelings or sentiments or social/cultural standards of appearance. It is not callous to call a spade a spade. 

36 minutes ago, KSera said:

I will correct the first part of  this, because it’s not accurate to say “most” will try to kill themselves anyways (and gosh but that sounds so flip and casual 😢).

I was not being flip or casual about it so much as just honest. I’m happy to be wrong about most.

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

There’s born male or female and rarely there is born with neither or both.  These are biological facts that are not based on feelings or sentiments or social/cultural standards of appearance. It is not callous to call a spade a spade. 

I was not being flip or casual about it so much as just honest. I’m happy to be wrong about most.

It is if you deny the biological reality of diversity (intersex people exist) and INTENTIONALLY invalidate the lived experiences of those who say they are experiencing harm to advance a circumscribed and blatantly whitewashed ‘feminist’ agenda, all the while wearing a chick-fil-a-ish sign reading ‘I’m an ally’. It’d be comical if it weren’t so serious.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Sneezyone

[KSera]

49 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Gosh. That's scary. Can you cite the study? 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
 

It’s pretty well done for what it is, but doesn’t answer all the questions we need answered. In particular, it compares this group to matched population controls; we have no idea what their outcome would be if they hadn’t transitioned. This is a big knowledge gap, but one that is hard to do a controlled study on. The increased suicide risk is enormous though 😥.

A more recent follow up showed no further increase after that 30 year point (slight decrease in elevated risk among trans women, but not men), but continued to conclude that there is a highly elevated risk of suicide at every stage of transition. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear to be a cure. 
 

Eta: of important note is that the transgender cohort only includes those individuals with no psychiatric diagnosis besides the gender dysphoria at the time of discharge. That excludes an enormous portion of the transgender population, as most suffer with depression and/or anxiety. This is an issue in a lot of the studies with longer-term data, as people with other psychiatric illnesses were almost always excluded from the treatment group, thus you had the most psychiatrically healthy group being the ones who got the treatment and were the treatment group and the most psychiatrically unhealthy being the ones in the control group who did not get treatment. The problem there is self-explanatory.

Edited August 3, 2023 by KSera

[Murphy101]

6 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

It is if you deny the biological reality of diversity (intersex people exist) and INTENTIONALLY invalidate the lived experiences of those who say they are experiencing harm to advance a circumscribed and blatantly whitewashed ‘feminist’ agenda, all the while wearing a chick fil a-ish sign reading ‘I’m an ally’. It’d be comical if it weren’t so serious.

I am not denying that there are rare cases of people born with various biological anatomical differences. But that’s very rare and I still don’t think it helpful or healthy to base social policies and early education standards for the masses on the exceedingly few exceptions.

I do think it is harmful to women’s rights to insist that the best way they can have equality to just stop existing as females by either being as much like the worst of men as possible or wipe out all traces of sexes entirely with a neutrality that denies both male and female.

[Sneezyone]

11 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I am not denying that there are rare cases of people born with various biological anatomical differences. But that’s very rare and I still don’t think it helpful or healthy to base social policies and early education standards for the masses on the exceedingly few exceptions.

I do think it is harmful to women’s rights to insist that the best way they can have equality to just stop existing as females by either being as much like the worst of men as possible or wipe out all traces of sexes entirely with a neutrality that denies both male and female.

It’s not about basing standards on exceptions but CHOOSING to use interpersonal language that’s inclusive of them whether they’re a huge population or not. CHOOSING to use language describing more families because it makes more kids feel seen. CHOOSING to try to pronounce someone’s name so they feel respected. These are, indeed, choices that reflect who we are. No one here has said, nor do the (still) vanishingly small numbers of trans folks mean, that they are attacking womanhood or femaleness or trying to invalidate them. That’s pure delusion IMO. It serves a variety of ends but none of them good.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Sneezyone

[PronghornD]

8 hours ago, maize said:

Should people trying to teach phonics pay less attention to phonics in order to shoulder this new burden? How many of other people's matters-to-me burdens should they continue to shoulder, dropping bits of phonics-teaching focus and effort for every one of these new burdens?

 

I'm coming late to this thread, but I don't quite understand the teaching-phonics example. In teaching, one of the most important things is to connect well with the student. That really aids in the student's learning, in my experience. So, it seems to me that paying attention to any gender issues your students have should actually aid in the teaching of phonics rather than being some extra burden. Perhaps you could explain further?

[regentrude]

18 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 or wipe out all traces of sexes entirely with a neutrality that denies both male and female.

I don't think anyone's goal is to wipe out all traces. I do, however, find it desirable that we examine where we use the male as default and exclude females ( the original question of this thread), and also whether all the labeling and sorting by sex or gender is *necessary*. In most life situations (except, of course, issues related to procreation and medical stuff) sex is irrelevant, yet we still use it as the primary criterion for sorting people into two classes. Even when it has absolutely no bearing on the situation. Unless you have a doctorate, the polite address begins with a gender marker, and the first thing that is said about a child is whether it's a boy or girl... as if that's the single most important thing to say about a human. 

 

Edited August 3, 2023 by regentrude

[PronghornD]

The available statistics may not be the best. And our understanding of brain development is imperfect -- which causes problems since much of gender is in the brain. However, some of us are dealing with these issues with an actual, much-loved child rather than a societal trend. In such cases, the statistics really recede into the background. You don't need statistics and precise scientific knowledge to know and love people or to treat them with respect.

Edited August 3, 2023 by PronghornD

[Ginevra]

4 minutes ago, regentrude said:

I don't think anyone's goal is to wipe out all traces. I do, however, find it desirable that we examine where we use the male as default and exclude females ( the original question of this thread), and also whether all the labeling and sorting by sex or gender is *necessary*. In almost all life situations (except, of course, issues related to procreation and medical stuff) sex is irrelevant, yet we still use it as the primary criterion for sorting people into two classes. Even when it has absolutely no bearing on the situation. Unless you have a doctorate, the polite address begins with a gender marker, and the first thing that is said about a child is whetherit'sa boy or girl... Like that's the single most important thing to say about a human. 

 

Do you see what I have seen, though? Where, in a weird way, it’s come to be interpreted as, “You must be a guy, then.” When I was growing up, females who liked things stereotypically called “guy things” were at least called tomboys, or in other cases, were assumed to be butch lesbians. (In some cases, accurately.) But in my anecdotal experience, nobody thought it meant they were *supposed* to be a boy and had ended up in a female body. I did not know any transgender people at all until I was in my late 30s, and then that person was older and had started life completely over as the opposite sex. 
 

I am super-supportive of not defaulting to male. I love where I work because there are people in different positions regardless of gender, age, race. It’s a million times more progressive than where I used to work, which had deeply engrained gender roles. But at the same time, I don’t think it’s bad that babies are categorized at birth (if not before birth) by gender, and I think it is good for kids, not harmful at all, to be able to identify themselves by gender. It is part of healthy child development to develop one’s identity. 

[lauraw4321]

6 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

L's school uses first year, second year, etc. but also each graduation year picks a name/mascot. So class of 2025 is the Fireflies. So a new transfer this year would be a firefly, even though their first year on campus IS their third year of college. 

 

 

Given this is my school, I wanted to share that I’m a Poison Ivy (green was our color). 

[regentrude]

1 hour ago, Ginevra said:

I think it is good for kids, not harmful at all, to be able to identify themselves by gender. It is part of healthy child development to develop one’s identity. 

But why must gender be *necessarily* part of one's identity?

I do not have any internal sense of being a woman. I have a female anatomy and suffer all the crap that comes with menstruation,  but I do not know what it means to *feel* woman or through what this sense would be transported. I had a sense of being a *mother*  but I have no sense of a "female identity".

My identity derives from so many other things first - I have, at times, defined myself through my job, now I define myself through my creative pursuits... on my list of attributes I consider defining for myself, being a woman would come very very late if at all.

So no, I do not believe that, in order to develop a sense of identity, sex/gender must be essential for every person. And I would prefer it if we didn't have this binary labeling shoved down our throats from infanthood on when it wouldn’t matter for most of the things in life if society didn't constantly make it an issue. Why are we so obsessed with sorting humans into two boxes? 

Eta: I have asked the question in two different groups of women I belong to, and in each about half of them said they have no sense of female identity and consider themselves simply persons. 

Edited August 3, 2023 by regentrude

[Melissa Louise]

7 hours ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

 

Don't y'all think encouraging children to live as their sex assigned at birth (if they don't identify with that) could possibly lead to a stronger urge to change things quickly? What do you really think you're accomplishing by denying their reality?

Grounding them in material reality?

Their sex wasn't assigned at birth. It was observed at or before birth, and it's immutable. 

But that within that constraint, children of either sex should feel free to reject the gendered stereotypes placed on them. 

And that they can reject gendered socialization from a secure, reality based position as either male or female. 

[KSera]

17 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Their sex wasn't assigned at birth. It was observed at or before birth, and it's immutable. 

And with common genetic screening during pregnancy these days, sex is frequently known starting around 10 weeks of pregnancy. And that's not via "assigning" or observing, but based on chromosomes. The "sex assigned at birth" thing is one that really does grate on me. It's not grounded in science or reality at all. We can still be honest about things, even in the face of painful gender dysphoria.

[Melissa Louise]

10 minutes ago, KSera said:

We can still be honest about things, even in the face of painful gender dysphoria.

Yes, we can.

Dishonesty has its own costs. 

 

[Ginevra]

4 hours ago, regentrude said:

But why must gender be *necessarily* part of one's identity?

I do not have any internal sense of being a woman. I have a female anatomy and suffer all the crap that comes with menstruation,  but I do not know what it means to *feel* woman or through what this sense would be transported. I had a sense of being a *mother*  but I have no sense of a "female identity".

My identity derives from so many other things first - I have, at times, defined myself through my job, now I define myself through my creative pursuits... on my list of attributes I consider defining for myself, being a woman would come very very late if at all.

So no, I do not believe that, in order to develop a sense of identity, sex/gender must be essential for every person. And I would prefer it if we didn't have this binary labeling shoved down our throats from infanthood on when it wouldn’t matter for most of the things in life if society didn't constantly make it an issue. Why are we so obsessed with sorting humans into two boxes? 

Eta: I have asked the question in two different groups of women I belong to, and in each about half of them said they have no sense of female identity and consider themselves simply persons. 

I *think* (but am speaking only for myself on this) that the answer is because of biology. Female bodies and male bodies have different needs, purposes and limitations. I am not a medical provider, but there are medical reasons they need to know what your biology is. Even on this super-woke college form I mentioned, it wants to know the student’s “sex assigned at birth”, complete with a hyperlink to answer “Why do we ask for this”. 
 

Of course, there are also a slew of other natural differences both mentally and physically. Medically, it matters for lots of things whether you arrived in the world with XY or XX chromosomes. (Or, indeed, something else, like XXY.) I *think* it would be (and is) difficult to understand things about other people if you have no starting point of biology. In society, we acknowledge that in other ways; I.e., it’s a different starting point if someone with whom I need to interact is 24 years old or 87. If I’m, say, talking with a client over the phone and I know they are 24, I’m going to assume they know what I mean if I tell them to digitally sign a form and scan it back to me. But if I know they are 87 (or in this age category), I am not going to assume they understand that; I’m not even going to assume they have an email account or a smart phone at all. 
 

What my vision is for the world is that there are biological, natural males and females who accept and embrace their natural gender and their natural orientation, and that no limitations - literal or sociological - face them in whatever they want to make of their lives. So, I don’t want gender to *matter* for anything that isn’t specific to biology, but I don’t want society to pretend sex makes no difference at all. I think, with children, we know (scientifically) that categories are important and that a strong personal identity is important to mental wellness. That doesn’t mean 50yo female must have a strong sense of “femaleness”, but kids, categorizing everyone as they do, benefit from being able to categorize themselves as they form their identity. In my humble non-professional medical or mental health opinion, society ought not muddy the waters by telling kids they *may* be a boy on the inside while being a girl on the outside or other such similar nonsense. 
 

 

[Ginevra]

7 hours ago, regentrude said:

I don't think anyone's goal is to wipe out all traces. I do, however, find it desirable that we examine where we use the male as default and exclude females ( the original question of this thread), and also whether all the labeling and sorting by sex or gender is *necessary*. In most life situations (except, of course, issues related to procreation and medical stuff) sex is irrelevant, yet we still use it as the primary criterion for sorting people into two classes. Even when it has absolutely no bearing on the situation. Unless you have a doctorate, the polite address begins with a gender marker, and the first thing that is said about a child is whether it's a boy or girl... as if that's the single most important thing to say about a human. 

 

I also want to piggy-back on the thoughts I just expressed by saying I do long for the day when the bolded is not the case. I do think the above is a very clear holdover from male-hierarchical societal structure. It’s why I try to avoid using Mr/Ms at all and have not used “Mrs” - which I truly hate - in all my adult years except where the person referred to themselves as Mrs. I never used it for myself personally and I retained my maiden name as my middle name. 
 

However, I find the pronouns in the digital signature block to be ironically funny, in light of the fact that lots of my pregnancy contemporaries gave their kids (especially their daughters!) a gender-neutral name or nickname in the hopes that they would not be held back in professional circles. So their girls were named “Carter” and “Morgan” and/or were nicknamed “T.J.” Or “Tye” and now, potentially, their digital sig follows this with (She/her). 😄 I find that funny. 
 

The overwhelmingly large majority of sig blocks I see with pronouns are cases in which it’s not giving any information you wouldn’t have guessed otherwise. I have yet to see the instance in which I was glad it was in there because I wouldn’t have known. 

[EKS]

8 hours ago, regentrude said:

I do not have any internal sense of being a woman. I have a female anatomy and suffer all the crap that comes with menstruation,  but I do not know what it means to *feel* woman or through what this sense would be transported. I had a sense of being a *mother*  but I have no sense of a "female identity".

Same here.  I also don't think of myself as a man (to be clear, given my statements about gender dysphoria above).  

2 hours ago, Ginevra said:

I *think* (but am speaking only for myself on this) that the answer is because of biology. Female bodies and male bodies have different needs, purposes and limitations. I am not a medical provider, but there are medical reasons they need to know what your biology is.

Knowing that you are a woman and having it as part of your identity are two different things.  

[regentrude]

3 hours ago, Ginevra said:

The overwhelmingly large majority of sig blocks I see with pronouns are cases in which it’s not giving any information you wouldn’t have guessed otherwise. I have yet to see the instance in which I was glad it was in there because I wouldn’t have known. 

As stated before,  one purpose of the pronouns in the signature (of someone whose pronoun you would automatically have assumed to be this) is to signal that this person is accepting of nb/trans persons. I hadn't thought there was any point in my including mine until friends pointed out how much of a difference it makes for them feeling welcome. 

And yes, I have learned from several people's signatures that they use they/them pronouns. 

It probably depends a lot on the demographic of your email correspondents is; I deal with college students. 

[Murphy101]

 

11 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

No one here has said, nor do the (still) vanishingly small numbers of trans folks mean, that they are attacking womanhood or femaleness or trying to invalidate them. That’s pure delusion IMO. It serves a variety of ends but none of them good.

Then we disagree. It happens in society. 
If I see a man or a woman and I need to describe them, I’m going to say that man or woman. If I’m wrong, I’ll say sorry. Same for names. (Though this cracks me up bc no one ever gets my name right. And no one ever knows why.  LOL) 

11 hours ago, regentrude said:

I don't think anyone's goal is to wipe out all traces. I do, however, find it desirable that we examine where we use the male as default and exclude females ( the original question of this thread),

I would not mind for example if instead of choosing to call women mail carriers mailman or mailperson/carrier, why can’t they be called mailwoman? Why is the default to either male or nothingness? 

11 hours ago, regentrude said:

and also whether all the labeling and sorting by sex or gender is *necessary*. In most life situations (except, of course, issues related to procreation and medical stuff) sex is irrelevant, yet we still use it as the primary criterion for sorting people into two classes. Even when it has absolutely no bearing on the situation. Unless you have a doctorate, the polite address begins with a gender marker, and the first thing that is said about a child is whether it's a boy or girl... as if that's the single most important thing to say about a human. 

I don’t think it is the single most important thing about a human but it is a defining aspect of our physical beings that very much affects our interactions with fellow humans.  I’m always amused by the baby sex announcing on tv. None of my drs said that. They all said here is your son/daughter/baby’s name.  Two of them weren’t breathing at birth so that’s all the conversation was about for a bit.

As for a biological woman doesn’t have an internal sense of being a woman.  That’s like saying we don’t have an internal sense of being a human or an earth dweller.  Obviously we actually do have that sense but it’s not a simple thing to pin down bc it’s a constant unchangeable state of being.

[regentrude]

1 minute ago, Murphy101 said:

I would not mind for example if instead of choosing to call women mail carriers mailman or mailperson/carrier, why can’t they be called mailwoman? Why is the default to either male or nothingness? 

Two aspects:

1. Often, the old term is perceived as low status/derogatory and the new term sounds fancier/more professional. (If the individual female postal worker is OK with the term mail woman, sure, I see no issue. )

This is for example why the gender neutral secretary became admin assistant. 

2. Use as a general term for a worker of unspecified gender. In this case, using the male term assumes there are no females,  or they don't get included. 

[SKL]

To the idea that it's wrong to classify humans into male/female as if that's an important distinction:

1) I think the why behind this is an interesting question.  Has there ever been any actual social unit that did not do this in human history?  (And even animals differentiate activities by sex.)  I think this is a question worthy of serious anthropological study upon which we can then base modern decisions.  It doesn't work the other way IMO.

2) It makes absolutely no sense to simultaneously believe:

• Gender should be irrelevant for all societal intents and purposes, to the point we shouldn't even call little XXs and XYs girls and boys.
• Gender identity is so important that it needs to be explicitly respected/followed in all human interactions, HR policy, education policy, bathrooms, sports, housing, and all the things we haven't thought of yet.

Why wasn't it good enough to say "girls can be doctors and bull-riders, boys can be nurses and Barbie fans"?

[regentrude]

15 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

As for a biological woman doesn’t have an internal sense of being a woman.  That’s like saying we don’t have an internal sense of being a human or an earth dweller.  Obviously we actually do have that sense but it’s not a simple thing to pin down bc it’s a constant unchangeable state of being.

But what I find fascinating is that some people obviously DO have a strong sense of gender identity. In order to experience gender dysphoria, a person must first have a sense of gender at all... and I've been thinking about that because I can't imagine what that feels like. 

[SKL]

7 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Two aspects:

1. Often, the old term is perceived as low status/derogatory and the new term sounds fancier/more professional. (If the individual female postal worker is OK with the term mail woman, sure, I see no issue. )

Interesting concept.  Historically, for example, "Secretary" began to seem like less after it stopped being mainly a male role.  The respect and the pay reflected the fact that society didn't want to admit that women were capable of important responsibilities.  Similar history with several other professions that women have successfully infiltrated over the years.

"Admin assistant" includes what used to be "Secretary," plus lots of things that require less skill than an actual Secretary.  It's still almost 100% female in most companies.  The pay is still not impressive.

I doubt that being called an "admin assistant" instead of a "secretary" raises any woman's self-esteem.  But I could be wrong.

[EKS]

24 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

As for a biological woman doesn’t have an internal sense of being a woman.  That’s like saying we don’t have an internal sense of being a human or an earth dweller.  Obviously we actually do have that sense but it’s not a simple thing to pin down bc it’s a constant unchangeable state of being.

Well, yes.  I think the point was that the sense of "being a woman" isn't some big overwhelming thing that is at the forefront of one's mind.  If you read the book Gender Queer, what's disturbing about it is the absolute obsession with gender identity, the constant rumination about what "identity" the protagonist is going to choose.  No wonder the protagonist is so miserable--such extreme inward focus is a sure recipe for negative emotion.  I found the book's modeling of this sort of angsty narcissism to be far more disturbing than its sexual content.  

[Murphy101]

48 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Two aspects:

1. Often, the old term is perceived as low status/derogatory and the new term sounds fancier/more professional. (If the individual female postal worker is OK with the term mail woman, sure, I see no issue. )

This is for example why the gender neutral secretary became admin assistant. 
 

Which is also an insult to women, bc the real reason for the change was men viewing being called a secretary as emasculating. It was like saying to a man “you hit like a girl”.

[EKS]

56 minutes ago, regentrude said:

This is for example why the gender neutral secretary became admin assistant. 

I'd argue that the term administrative assistant is just as gendered as secretary is.

[Ginevra]

45 minutes ago, regentrude said:

But what I find fascinating is that some people obviously DO have a strong sense of gender identity. In order to experience gender dysphoria, a person must first have a sense of gender at all... and I've been thinking about that because I can't imagine what that feels like. 

Yes, and I do have a strong sense of being female. I think, though, that a lot of this was reinforced in childhood because my mom was all about it. But it is interesting because my sister was, in fact, very tomboyish and resisted all the “girly” stuff I readily embraced. There were many tearful moments getting ready for church because she hated the “itchy dresses” and I loved them. So. Who know really why that is. 

[Murphy101]

45 minutes ago, regentrude said:

But what I find fascinating is that some people obviously DO have a strong sense of gender identity. In order to experience gender dysphoria, a person must first have a sense of gender at all... and I've been thinking about that because I can't imagine what that feels like. 

Well me either. Because gender is not a state of being - it is purely a made up social construct. And what that looks like changes, often drastically, from time period, culture/ethnicity, location and situation.  It has nothing at all to do with state of being unless we make it that way, for example by insisting women can’t have jobs even if they can do the job or men can’t change diapers if there’s a woman around to do it.

To me saying someone identifies with a gender is like saying a core identity is as an office worker.   Even if that were true, most people would think it at least sorta concerning for mental health to truely feel we must BE our career. 

[Ginevra]

16 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Which is also an insult to women, bc the real reason for the change was men viewing being called a secretary as emasculating. It was like saying to a man “you hit like a girl”.

Yes; parents are doing essentially the same thing when they will give their girls a boyish name but would never give their son a girlish name. (Although neither did I. My kids were given names that are most often used for their actual gender.) 

[Murphy101]

1 minute ago, Ginevra said:

Yes; parents are doing essentially the same thing when they will give their girls a boyish name but would never give their son a girlish name. (Although neither did I. My kids were given names that are most often used for their actual gender.) 

Right. It’s always okay to give a girl a boy name or give either a neutral name. But there’s gonna be hell if they name a  son Sue.  Because having a girl’s name is insulting. 

[SKL]

24 minutes ago, Ginevra said:

Yes, and I do have a strong sense of being female. I think, though, that a lot of this was reinforced in childhood because my mom was all about it. But it is interesting because my sister was, in fact, very tomboyish and resisted all the “girly” stuff I readily embraced. There were many tearful moments getting ready for church because she hated the “itchy dresses” and I loved them. So. Who know really why that is. 

Individuals are all different, that's all.

Each of my girls likes a different mix of traditionally "feminine" and "masculine" things, with some cross-over as they get older.  My siblings and I also fall all over the spectrum.

Edited August 3, 2023 by SKL

[regentrude]

10 minutes ago, Ginevra said:

Yes; parents are doing essentially the same thing when they will give their girls a boyish name but would never give their son a girlish ne

In a patriarchal society, this is simply giving their daughters a small professional advantage and remove the automatic prejudice upon reading the name.

Same reason many female authors use initials.

As long as women are viewed as less capable,  why would anyone set up their sons for the same disadvantages?

 

Edited August 3, 2023 by regentrude

[KSera]

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

But what I find fascinating is that some people obviously DO have a strong sense of gender identity. In order to experience gender dysphoria, a person must first have a sense of gender at all... and I've been thinking about that because I can't imagine what that feels like. 

I think the source of that feeling is different for different people. For the more classic presentation of gender dysphoria, it most often a boy who feels like a girl from the time he’s very young. Typically this is a little boy who enjoys things considered “girly” but is not allowed them because it’s considered inappropriate in his family, so he pines for the dresses and nail polish and such. I can fully understand how this would cause gender dysphoria.

The presentation in the current, rapidly expanding cohort tends to be quite different. It’s frequently associated specifically with the physical body; being distressed about developing breasts is a common starting point for the Dysphoria for example. In my experience, it’s rare for young trans men have their issue be specifically that they feel inside like they are boys/men, but rather that they desperately hate being girls and in particular do not want to have a woman’s body. So, it doesn’t actually have to do with an internal sense of being the other sex, but with a deep desire to not have their current sexed body and to not be identified as their biological sex. I don’t have a deep enough relationship with any of the trans women in my life to know what triggers their dysphoria. 
 

I know this board has a lot of parents of kids who are nb and express no desire for body modification. Those kids seem to be more at peace with their bodies, but don’t want to be caught in gender stereotypes and are opting out. I think they represent a path that I hope will become more palatable to other kids who feel that way, as it’s a healthier path (physically and mentally) than hating their bodies and requiring medicalization with significant side effects. 
 
All that to say, people can and are diagnosed with gender dysphoria all the time without necessarily having any strong internal sense of their gender. 

[Heartstrings]

11 minutes ago, KSera said:

 

 

I know this board has a lot of parents of kids who are nb and express no desire for body modification. Those kids seem to be more at peace with their bodies, but don’t want to be caught in gender stereotypes and are opting out. I think they represent a path that I hope will become more palatable to other kids who feel that way, as it’s a healthier path (physically and mentally) than hating their bodies and requiring medicalization with significant side 

People have to stop hating trans people so much before we can improve any of this.   Being non binary or just non conforming should be an acceptable option, but as long as being trans is the worst possible thing we’re going to have parents and society pushing the stereotypes even harder, because you need to “prove” that you aren’t trans by being overly feminine or overly masculine.  
 

I follow a few women on tic tok who are women by birth, are straight, cis women, but who wear short hair and masculine clothes and they get death and rape threats for it.  Not confirming to stereotypes can be dangerous. 

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

People have to stop hating trans people so much before we can improve any of this.   Being non binary or just non conforming should be an acceptable option, but as long as being trans is the worst possible thing we’re going to have parents and society pushing the stereotypes even harder, because you need to “prove” that you aren’t trans by being overly feminine or overly masculine.  
 

I follow a few women on tic tok who are women by birth, are straight, cis women, but who wear short hair and masculine clothes and they get death and rape threats for it.  Not confirming to stereotypes can be dangerous. 

I don't think it's anti-trans parents pushing kids to think their not conforming to old gender stereotypes makes them not acceptable as boys or girls.  Kids (especially girls) are hearing at home "you can do any [legal] thing you want."  But at school, they're hearing "you keep wearing over-sized sweatshirts with short hair and no make-up.  Are you sure you're not a boy??"

[Heartstrings]

17 minutes ago, SKL said:

I don't think it's anti-trans parents pushing kids to think their not conforming to old gender stereotypes makes them not acceptable as boys or girls.  Kids (especially girls) are hearing at home "you can do any [legal] thing you want."  But at school, they're hearing "you keep wearing over-sized sweatshirts with short hair and no make-up.  Are you sure you're not a boy??"

I agree, to a point.   I know people who spew anti gay and anti trans rhetoric all around their kids.  Kids pick up on that.   Especially with boys.  A little boy playing with a doll gets told not to be f@gs, they aren’t allowed to play with girly toys for fear of turning them gay.  Girls with short hair are called d!kes. By parents, especially dads, by uncles grandparents, etc.    In my area it’s hard to for some kids to step even a toe out of the stereotypes.  

Edited August 3, 2023 by Heartstrings

[maize]

21 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I agree, to a point.   I know people who spew anti gay and anti trans rhetoric all around their kids.  Kids pick up on that.   Especially with boys.  A little boy playing with a doll gets told not to be f@gs, they aren’t allowed to play with girly toys for fear of turning them gay.  Girls with short hair are called d!kes. By parents, especially dads, by uncles grandparents, etc.    In my area it’s hard to for some kids to step even a toe out of the stereotypes.  

I am sorry there are so many awful parents in your area. I have never in my life heard a parent say anything like this to a child.

You actually hear these things on a regular basis?

[regentrude]

23 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I agree, to a point.   I know people who spew anti gay and anti trans rhetoric all around their kids.  Kids pick up on that.   Especially with boys.  A little boy playing with a doll gets told not to be f@gs, they aren’t allowed to play with girly toys for fear of turning them gay.  Girls with short hair are called d!kes. By parents, especially dads, by uncles grandparents, etc.    In my area it’s hard to for some kids to step even a toe out of the stereotypes.  

And especially when the adults in their lives have embraced the ridiculous conspiracy theory that there is a liberal agenda with the goal to MAKE all kids gay.

Eta: until recently,  I wasn't aware that people actually believe that. 

Edited August 3, 2023 by regentrude

[regentrude]

1 minute ago, maize said:

I am sorry there are so many awful parents in your area. I have never in my life heard a parent say anything like this to a child.

You actually hear these things on a regular basis?

Neighbor yelling at his little boy who cries when he got hurt that they don't want a f'ing f'got? Yep.

[Corraleno]

7 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

People have to stop hating trans people so much before we can improve any of this.   Being non binary or just non conforming should be an acceptable option, but as long as being trans is the worst possible thing we’re going to have parents and society pushing the stereotypes even harder, because you need to “prove” that you aren’t trans by being overly feminine or overly masculine.  

I follow a few women on tic tok who are women by birth, are straight, cis women, but who wear short hair and masculine clothes and they get death and rape threats for it.  Not confirming to stereotypes can be dangerous. 

Which is exactly the intention: the demonization of LGBT people is just one component of a very obvious campaign to force a return to strongly stereotyped gender roles, with "alpha males" in charge and submissive women doing as they're told — including giving men control over their reproductive rights. It's no coincidence that the same political forces that are demonizing gay and trans people, to the point of justifying violence against them by repeatedly equating LGBT with pedophilia, are also working to remove women's rights to contraception and abortion and make it harder to leave an abusive marriage (several states are trying to eliminate no fault divorce). They want a return to the days when women were kept at home, barefoot and pregnant, with no way out without a man's consent. And by cutting social services and SNAP/WIC benefits, they can ensure women remain financially dependent on men and make it even harder for them to leave bad relationships. They try to frame it as a religious issue, but the fact that women and already-born children are treated so appallingly makes it obvious that scriptural references are just a smokescreen for the attempt to regain power and control over women and our bodies.

[Ginevra]

16 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Which is also an insult to women, bc the real reason for the change was men viewing being called a secretary as emasculating. It was like saying to a man “you hit like a girl”.

Yes; parents are doing essentially the same thing when they will give their girls a boyish name but would never give their son a girlish name. (Although neither did I. My kids were given names that are most often used for their actual gender.) 

[Heartstrings]

1 minute ago, maize said:

I am sorry there are so many awful parents in your area. I have never in my life heard a parent say anything like this to a child.

You actually hear these things on a regular basis?

Absolutely.  It’s not the majority but it’s a sizeable, extremely vocal minority.  “Gonna turn that boy gay” is an especially common thing to hear, usually directed at the mom, as in “Dang it Jane, you’re gonna turn that boy gay if you keep babying him”, or “Dang it Jane don’t let him play with those dolls, you’ll turn him gay”.   “My Suzy’s ain’t gonna cut her hair short like one of them d!kes”.    
 

A very sweet, well meaning lady complained to me about girls playing male parts in our theater club play, she was concerned it might confuse them, “like so many kids these days”. She wanted to make sure they knew that “wasn’t ok” and  that we shouldn't be allowing it.    
 

I live in Moms for Liberty country where the appearance of 2 men on the same page of a picture book is pornography that should banned from libraries.   

[Danae]

For me a lot of this comes down to not needing to get involved in other people’s business.  If a new person at church introduces herself as Sally and wants to be referred to as “her” and I think Sally looks suspiciously masculine should I try to ferret out whether Sally is a biological female, maybe with severe PCOS, or a trans woman? No.  Sally’s chromosomal makeup and/or genital configuration is not information I need.  Unless I’m her doctor or her lover, it’s not my concern.  
 

[Ginevra]

3 hours ago, regentrude said:

In a patriarchal society, this is simply giving their daughters a small professional advantage and remove the automatic prejudice upon reading the name.

Same reason many female authors use initials.

As long as women are viewed as less capable,  why would anyone set up their sons for the same disadvantages?

 

I’m not saying it’s bad to do this. I just find it ironic that so many parents in the 80s and 90s chose names for their daughters which would obscure their gender, only to now have those same daughters announcing in their signature block that they are female. 

[Clarita]

7 minutes ago, Ginevra said:

I just find it ironic that so many parents in the 80s and 90s chose names for their daughters which would obscure their gender, only to now have those same daughters announcing in their signature block that they are female. 

Or it's a little bit of progress because their daughters aren't afraid of being female or doesn't feel like being female limits them from what they want to do. 

As much as it's not perfect, things today in the workplace for me are a lot better than they were for my mom and my MIL.