don't understand your comments about cake, or about the fellow lifting himself up.

If you're saying that programs in schools do not help a person that is currently suffering persecution because of the gender stereotypes held by others, I don't think anybody disagrees. But nobody is saying that school programs are the whole solution, only that they may be an important part of the solution. Solutions to social problems like this are complex and multi-faceted. Some parts - like the schools - will address the gradual removal of the stereotypes, and others will seek to protect people that currently suffer from those stereotypes. Inevitably, the experience of a nonconformist will be worse now or in five years than it will be in twenty years. — andrewk

I agree with that. I think we're talking about different things. You're talking about transgenderism, I think. I was talking about a family format that conflicts with the social ideal and the challenges facing a person who for various reasons seems locked into a certain identity.

A sort of principle emerges: no one can give you your freedom. You have to take it. I dont think that principle could be added to a curriculum, but if it could be, it would be a positive approach where gender neutrality seems like an attack; a negative approach.

I'm surprised that nobody has answered it, because I believe it is very simple. Perhaps you didn't ask it quite as directly before — andrewk

Well, it wasn't in the form of a question. It did make a direct statement that "gender" hasn't been defined as anything coherent or consistent.

'Gender' identifies with which of society's two standard sets of behavioural expectations the person most complies, or society expects them to comply.

Sex is biological. Gender is a societal expectation based on sex. — andrewk

Thank you.

So "gender" is how others treat you. In other words, it has to do with the behavior of others, and/or the ideas of others, but not you as a person. Based on your definition, "sex" is a characteristic of you and "gender" is a characteristic of a society or culture. So it doesn't make sense for a person to say that they want to "change their "gender". It would make more sense to say that they want to change society's "gender" - which is what gender neutrality is trying to do.

Another thing is that "womanhood" would refer to how others, or society treats females, not some feeling that a person has. It wouldn't make sense (using your definition) for a transgender to say "I feel like a woman" with "woman" referring to some feeling that they have. To a transgender, "womanhood", or "gender" is a feeling about themselves, not an expectation of others. The expectation is the antithesis of their gender.

I agree with Simone de Beauvoir that gendered expectations are oppressive and that it is worth working to eradicate them. That will take a very long time, and will encounter resistance, but it is worth the effort. — andrewk

What are some of the expectations of the United States culture that are enforced by laws? Don't we already have laws for the unequal treatment of anyone? What more do you want? It seems to me that by changing the way society expects different people to behave, you'd be changing society's gender (according to your definition).

Some people use 'gender' as a synonym for 'sex', and even prefer it because it sounds less rude. I think that is a mistake and, wherever possible refuse to fill in a field in a form marked 'gender' (or choose the 'prefer not to disclose' or 'indeterminate' option if there is one), while I am perfectly happy to indicate my sex. — andrewk

But I thought this was all about trying to not be rude and offensive and here you come along and say that it's okay to be rude and offensive. You're basically saying that people need to get over the idea of words being offensive and that we should be able to use words that we choose despite how others might feel about it. I couldn't agree more.

Although I think it is a mistake, I confess that I made it for much of my life, before I became aware of the importance of the distinction. — andrewk

I think the way you're thinking about gender now is a mistake and the result of a mass delusion.

I would not presume to tell the person anything, as I am not in a position to understand their experience, much less give them advice. It has to be acknowledged that in some cases gender dysphoria of the sort you mention can come into conflict with de Beauvoir's vision of feminism, and this has caused some distress on both sides. So it behoves us to proceed carefully in areas that are vulnerable to that conflict. But I think it is possible to work to dismantle societal gender expectations without having to enter that conflict zone. — andrewk

So in a gender-neutral society you would only enforce heterosexuals to use gender-neutral pronouns when referring to each other but when referring to a trans person we have to use gender specific pronouns? Isn't that inconsistent for a gender neutral society? It also sounds to me like you are pushing for special treatment, not equal treatment, of trans people.

So it seems to me that both your definition of "gender" and your concept of gender-neutrality would actually go against transgenders' ideas about "gender" and would therefore be oppressive to them. And here you all have been bashing me for just asking questions - trying to get at something coherent and meaningful.

gender neutrality seems like an attack; a negative approach. — frank

Well it is an attack on stereotypes, not on individuals. But you have hit upon the reason for all the resistance to something that would otherwise be uncontroversial, which is that people don't just conform to but also identify with stereotypes. As soon as one talks about 'manly virtues' and complementary 'womanly virtues', one declares the superior virtue of the manly man over the womanly man, and of the womanly woman over the manly woman. And at this point, one can start to talk about 'privilege'. Cue another bout of outrage.

Well it is an attack on stereotypes, not on individuals. — unenlightened

What is a stereotype of not the idea, or a belief, that a person has? Stereotypes don't exist independent of people's minds, so it would be an attack on a person's beliefs, or ideas. If you're an idealist, then you are your ideas. I think that there are a lot of people who don't integrate all of their ideas (metaphysical, political, scientific, moral, etc.) into a consistent whole, which is why we get inconsistencies across many different topics - something I have tried to point out but then my posts get deleted for being "off-topic".

Another reason the outrage is misplaced, of course, is that gender non-neutral vs gender neutral is not an absolute binary. Education has been trending towards gender neutrality in the West for generations in line with social changes empowering women. So, it's more a matter of following that trend a bit further rather than making some massive jump. Plus, as mentioned early on, according to the research, it seems to have fairly mild effects which are heavily mitigated by the culture as a whole.

Before I get strawmanned again, I'll reiterate I'm not yet a supporter of the move, not to mind some kind of rabid liberal social engineer of the kind dreamed up by some of the less constructive posters on this thread, but consider it worthy of exploration. I mean, why not? Where's all the fear and loathing coming from?

Well it is an attack on stereotypes, not on individuals. But you have hit upon the reason for all the resistance to something that would otherwise be uncontroversial, which is that people don't just conform to but also identify with stereotypes. As soon as one talks about 'manly virtues' and complementary 'womanly virtues', one declares the superior virtue of the manly man over the womanly man, and of the womanly woman over the manly woman. And at this point, one can start to talk about 'privilege'. Cue another bout of outrage. — unenlightened

There are environments where women are frequently central to the home. In the case of my linebacker, it's his grandmother. He's not going to grow up to be a grandmother, though. That's why we have to consider who his father is to understand his outlook.

Anyway, a theme video for this thread to convey the cosmic size of some of the individuals on the scene:

I think I have firm grasp of language as I have been able accumulate 1.7k posts without much of a problem. The only problem I seem to be having is with the way in which you are using a certsin term - "gender". I have defined it as the equivalence of sex. You have yet to provide a consistent definition for your use of the term. — Harry Hindu

Define "I", "have", "equivalence", "consistent", "certain", "defined", "language", "able" etc. We generally do not need definitions to talk plainly about things, and certain words - like language, game, object, culture, ability and so on are quite resistant to exhaustive and exclusive characterisations/definitions.

Nevertheless, by means of a guideline, in case you don't actually understand what I mean by gender and sex, sex is a property of a body determined by the presence of typical reproductive organs and other biological properties in the population. Females typically have wombs, vulvas, clitorises, ovaries, XX chromosomes and so on. Males typically have penises, testicles, developed facial hair and so on. There are edge cases, as I highlighted with XX male syndrome, and these people (as @andrewk) pointed are usually called 'intersex'.

Instead of focussing on my definition of sex and gender, let's look at a neutral institution's treatment of the term - the WHO. The WHO defines gender as:

Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. — WHO

and adds:

It varies from society to society and can be changed. While most people are born either male or female, they are taught appropriate norms and behaviours – including how they should interact with others of the same or opposite sex within households, communities and work places. When individuals or groups do not “fit” established gender norms they often face stigma, discriminatory practices or social exclusion – all of which adversely affect health. It is important to be sensitive to different identities that do not necessarily fit into binary male or female sex categories.

It further clarifies the distinction between sex and gender in its term glossary page:

(Gender) Refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed. The concept of gender includes five important elements: relational, hierarchical, historical, contextual and institutional. While most people are born either male or female, they are taught appropriate norms and behaviours – including how they should interact with others of the same or opposite sex within households, communities and work places. When individuals or groups do not “fit” established gender norms they often face stigma, discriminatory practices or social exclusion – all of which adversely affect health.

Note here that they explicitly include qualifying phrases to indicate that they are also discussing trans people, their rights, opportunities and so in with their account. A key term they use in characterising comparative advantages that one gender may have over another are '(gender based) differential exposure to risk factors':

(Differential exposure to risk factors means) Refers to the different ways in which gender norms, roles and relations affect women and men’s exposure to risk factors. For example, due to the gender-based division of labour different groups of women and men are exposed to different risks for work-related injuries or illnesses (paid activities) or women’s gender roles with respect to food preparation in low and mid income settings (unpaid activities) often exposes them to unsafe cooking fuels more often than men.

though there are other concepts they use in their assessment of gender in a society, culture, institution or other social structure (note the relevance of this to the definition of gender as a social construction). Through their assessments, they have a guideline scale that they use to assess the the social structure's attitude towards gender and how they manage, mitigate or incorporate relative advantages and disadvantages arising from gender. The scale goes from 1 to 5, where 1 is 'gender unequal, 2 is 'gender blind', 3 is 'gender sensitive', 4 is 'gender specific' and 5 is 'gender transformative'.

The debate in this thread, and with you really, occurs when a social structure we share is on the precipice of transition from 2 to anywhere above it - which the WHO believes is a good thing by the way. The starting point, 2 is:

Level 2: Gender-blind
• Ignores gender norms, roles and relations
• Very often reinforces gender-based discrimination
• Ignores differences in opportunities and resource allocation for women and men
• Often constructed based on the principle of being “fair” by treating everyone the same

which, if I have read you correctly, you emphasise the first bullet point very strongly because of your firm belief in the fourth bullet point. You seem aware of the third bullet point in your contrasts from typical western societies and institution to places like Iran and Saudi Arabia, and you are resisting the idea that being 'gender blind' actually 'very often reinforces gender-based discrimination'.

This was covered in the thread in the discussion between @Hanover, @Baden and others. The key points of contrast were that progressive political interventions were seen as intrusive applications of ideology by one side of the argument, while the other attempted to highlight that the current state of affairs is already an intrusive application of the ideology of gender norms. This is partially why a 'gender blind' attitude on a societal or institutional level actually maintains harmful gender norms - it sees interventions against them as unjustified, and the very means by which we would justify such interventions in terms of the attempt to increase fairness is stymied by the application of current fiat (like legal or contractual) equality.

This level of understanding of gender is deemed as decidedly suboptimal by the WHO, that well known biased and illogical postmodern neomarxist organisation. The stages after it mirror the perspectives expressed by @Baden, @andrewk and others.

Level 3: Gender-sensitive
• Considers gender norms, roles and relations
• Does not address inequality generated by unequal norms, roles or relations
• Indicates gender awareness, although often no remedial action is developed

Level 4: Gender-specific
• Considers gender norms, roles and relations for women and men and how they affect access to and control over resources
• Considers women’s and men’s specific needs
• Intentionally targets and benefits a specific group of women or men to achieve certain policy or programme goals or meet certain needs
• Makes it easier for women and men to fulfil duties that are ascribed to them based on their gender roles

Level 5: Gender-transformative
• Considers gender norms, roles and relations for women and men and that these affect access to and control over resources
• Considers women’s and men’s specific needs
• Addresses the causes of gender-based health inequities
• Includes ways to transform harmful gender norms, roles and relations
• The objective is often to promote gender equality
• Includes strategies to foster progressive changes in power relationships between women and men

I have no idea how you could maintain that gender is an inconsistent concept without satisfactory characterisation, and how you could maintain ignorance about the stakes involved in progressive politics about gender when the WHO has already done all this work for you, and explicitly includes trans issues among gender ones. It is also written in largely non-technical language, and they they provide an extremely clear conception of gender and what's at stake in interventions to promote gender equality and sensitivity.

We generally do not need definitions to talk plainly about things, and certain words - like language, game, object, culture, ability and so on are quite resistant to exhaustive and exclusive characterisations/definitions. — fdrake

If we aren't using the same definitions then we are simply talking past each other, which is a waste of my time.

Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. — WHO

See my reply to andrew on this page.

and you are resisting the idea that being 'gender blind' actually 'very often reinforces gender-based discrimination'. — fdrake

Strange. I thought it would be different for a gender-neutral society. A gender-neutral society would want to be blind to gender - not notice it - not refer to it - not make the distinction between genders (not use gender-specific pronouns). To be color-blind is to treat others equally regardless of their race. To be gender-blind is to treat people equally regardless of their gender.

For me gender is a characteristic of an individual, or more specifically the sex of the individual. For you and the left (I should let everyone know that I'm not on the right. I consider myself as a-political), it is the characteristic of a society and is the antithesis of how a transperson uses the term - to refer to a characteristic about themselves as an individual.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/willful_ignorance

Looks like something you need to read and reflect on, Baden. As I have shown, it is you, unenlightened, andrew and fdrake who are oppressing trans people with your definition gender and your ideas of gender-neutrality. It is you who are willfully ignorant of that fact.

For those like the above for whom the WHO definition is just too complicated to understand:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gender

Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.

Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. — Baden

My explanation wasn't complicated at all. It was an explanation about the implications of your own definition - something you don't seem to think about.

The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female. — Baden

This part shows that "gender" is arbitrary and therefore meaningless independent of some subjective idea of gender. I could make up any identity and call it "gender". It also contradicts the previous sentence in your definition.

Listen, please. It's not my definition. It's not a left-wing definition. It's the standard definition. It's what the word means and how it's used in every discussion in the area on which the OP is focused. If you don't want to recognize it, fine, but in that case, you won't be able to communicate on this topic.

I mean if you think gender is exclusively biological sex, then what could 'gender-neutral' even mean? Cutting little boys dangly bits off and giving half of them to girls? This is how absurd your position is.

For me gender is a characteristic of an individual, or more specifically the sex of the individual. For you and the left (I should let everyone know that I'm not on the right. I consider myself as a-political), it is the characteristic of a society and is the antithesis of how a transperson uses the term - to refer to a characteristic about themselves as an individual. — Harry Hindu

Hm. I wasn't aware that the WHO was a leftist institution. It has a good reputation for non-partisanship and factual accuracy. Which do you think is more likely, really, that a nonpartisan international collaboration of scientists and policy researchers has a research topic which is completely incoherent and they've somehow not noticed it or that you have an inadequate understanding of the issue?

Their research topic is consistent with years of anthropology and social studies on the difference between gender and sex, is consistent with current dictionary definitions of the word 'gender', and uses both lived experiences/first hand sources and statistical techniques to analyse the impact of gender based differential advantages in institutions, societies and cultures... Their definition of gender is commensurate with and informed by this understanding.

I'll trust the WHO rather than you here. I advise others to do the same.

I mean if you thought gender is exclusively biological sex, then what could 'gender-neutral' even mean? Cutting little boys dangly bits off and giving half of them to girls? This is how absurd your position is. — Baden

No it means to not treat people unequally based on their gender/sex. We have that and is what I and Hanover has argued, but you are willfully ignorant.

Listen, please. It's not my definition. It's not a left-wing definition. It's the standard definition. It's what the word means and how it's used in every discussion in the area on which the OP is focused. If you don't want to recognize it fine, but in that case you won't be able to communicate on this topic. — Baden

Listen to yourself. If it's not your definition then why are you using it? I never said it was a left-wing definition. I said it was an incoherent definition. Can we do without the politics at the moment and just deal the logic of what you are saying?

I never said it was a left-wing definition. — Harry Hindu

For you and the left (I should let everyone know that I'm not on the right. I consider myself as a-political), it is the characteristic of a society... — Harry Hindu

...

If it's not your definition then why are you using it? — Harry Hindu

Because I don't make up my own definitions of words, but rely on authorities such as dictionaries, social institutions etc.

Which do you think is more likely, really, that a nonpartisan international collaboration of scientists and policy researchers has a research topic which is completely incoherent and they've somehow not noticed it or that you have an inadequate understanding of the issue? — fdrake

Did I not point out the inconsistency? Why can't you defend it? You posted it and are agreeing with it so you must know how to defend it.

Because I don't make up my own definitions of words, but rely on authorities such as dictionaries, social institutions etc. — Baden

and that, Baden is pleading to authority. Again, I ask you to use lay your emotions aside and use your logic.

Scientific definitions aren't written in stone. Haven't you argued that on this forum? More inconsistencies. [mod deletion - one sentence]

This part shows that "gender" is arbitrary and therefore meaningless independent of some subjective idea of gender. I could make up any identity and call it "gender". It also contradicts the previous sentence in your definition. — Harry Hindu

You want consistency in definition, you've seen definitions from the WHO and the Oxford English Dictionary that conflict with yours. You're a person on the internet engaging in a-priori speculation about the meaning of words who finds something, gender, incoherent. The WHO and Oxford English dictionary are non-partisan institutions which (1) research the topic unbiasedly and set out a clear definition of gender which is informed by investigation and (2) reflect the actual usage of the word 'gender' and its connotations.

All I see is someone who for some reason wants a clear definition of something but can't recognise one when it's given and painstakingly explained to them. This isn't a limitation of the concept of gender, this is a limitation of your understanding of it. It is not equivalent to sex, either in the common usage of the word or in the senses relevant to the WHO's research.

The mods are oppressing trans people. I am a trans person and they are using definitions that oppress me and blocking my free speech rights to say so.

Authoritarian Socialist Note: The definition of 'gender' for the purposes of this thread is the normal definition as used in the social sciences and dictionaries etc. Anyone who disrupts the discussion with side-debates about other definitions or refusing to recognize what everyone else is talking about will have their posts deleted.

So, it's more a matter of following that trend a bit further rather than making some massive jump. Plus, as mentioned early on, according to the research, it seems to have fairly mild effects which are heavily mitigated by the culture as a whole. — Baden

Right. It's a non-issue. The fact that we talk about it probably reflects the desire to address real gender issues.

What are some of the expectations of the United States culture that are enforced by laws? Don't we already have laws for the unequal treatment of anyone? What more do you want? — Harry Hindu

I am not aware of any laws in the US or any other developed country that enforce gender norms (unless we count Saudi Arabia as a developed country. Saudi's gender norms are amongst the world's most vicious, and are enforced by law as well as social pressure). In developed countries gender norms are enforced by social rather than legal pressure, as well as by the way people raise children. What I would like to see is the reduction of that social pressure and more people raising their children without placing gendered behavioural expectations on them. As I read it, the second of those is what the APA doc related to.

But I thought this was all about trying to not be rude and offensive and here you come along and say that it's okay to be rude and offensive. — Harry Hindu

I don't think it's rude to talk about sex. I was just referring to the fact that there are still plenty of people in the world that think it is, and it is out of ill-advised deference to them that I have in the past said 'gender' when I meant 'sex'. Let's proceed as though I had put quotation marks around "rude" in my earlier post.

So in a gender-neutral society you would only enforce heterosexuals to use gender-neutral pronouns when referring to each other but when referring to a trans person we have to use gender specific pronouns? — Harry Hindu

I don't want anybody to be forced to use any pronoun they don't want to use.

The idea that people would be so forced is a piece of hysterical nonsense spouted by Jordan Peterson, who claims that Canadian Bill C-16 does that. I have read C-16 and it says nothing of the kind. So either Peterson has very poor comprehension skills or he hasn't actually read the bill or he is being dishonest. He appears a clever chap so I doubt his excuse is poor comprehension skills.

There's space between it being a non-issue and so critical as to merit vitriolic opposition. And of course, there are shades of gender-neutrality to be considered. Doing things like abolishing differences in dress codes between boys and girls and not laying any emphasis on their biological differences in classroom content or practice seem reasonable to me, and I can't see how they would interfere with individual parenting choices. Whether or not that should be taken further and children should be actively encouraged to challenge gender roles (as in girls being taught to be more assertive/aggressive etc) is more debatable. But again, it seems even the most extreme gender-neutral public schooling that's been tried in Sweden doesn't result in anything earth-shattering.

So, what's been reflected here is that:

the politicised gender war taking place in America does seem more poisonous. — unenlightened

Why? Why is it so poisonous? Why are moves towards gender neutrality considered so threatening when the only research done on it suggests only minor effects? Are the opposition even interested in the results? Or is it just a knee-jerk reaction to anything perceived as liberal/feminist/left-wing etc?

You are mistaken because gender neutrality doesn't have a problem with anyone belonging to one gender or another. All it does is decouple necessary traits from a gender binary. Gender neutrality is fine with there being men and women, whether those men and women are trans people or not. It accepts someone belong to a gender in terms of itself. They are their gender, regardless of which particular traits they have.

You are correct to think this is also about sex. Since gender is only itself, it cannot be reduced to having one particular trait or another. This is no limited to behaviours or preferences. It's also true of body parts. Gender is not the only arbitrary category in play. Sex is also an arbitrary category because it a second order social classification.

When say someone belongs to a sex, we aren't describing the body they have. We are sorting them into a certain social category. Describing a body doesn't actually involve this move. If I cite someone body (e.g. the have a penis, these chromosomes, these other characteristics, etc.), they could be in any social category I wanted and it wouldn't affect there body at all.

Someone with a vagina could be categorised as "man," someone with a penis could be category could be categorised as a "woman."Their bodies wouldn't be affected and any one could describe their body perfectly well. Sex is not the body. It's a social category a body is taken to belong to.

Trans people aren't trans on account having to have a particular trait to be a man or woman. They are trans because they are the opposite of what it expected under a certain sex/gender assignment. It's not a description of how they are a man or women. Their "transness" is a reflection of their meaning in terms of binary gender/sex understandings which are present in society.

In a society which understood sex/gender in terms of itself, as the arbitrary social categorisation it is, trans people would not be trans in this respect. They would just be men and women as they are, whether they had a penis or a vagina (or any other trait) because no one would expect them to be otherwise.

But we don't live in that society (at least, not yet), so people want some way of understanding the man with a vagina or the women with a penis in terms of their binary understanding of gender. "Trans" is this marker. It says: "This man/woman is not what I expected given what I think of men/women. They are a different man/woman in this respect."

So, what's been reflected here is that:

the politicised gender war taking place in America does seem more poisonous.
— unenlightened

Why? Why is it so poisonous? Why are moves towards gender neutrality considered so threatening when the only research done on it suggests only minor effects? Are the opposition even interested in the results? Or is it just a knee-jerk reaction to anything perceived as liberal/feminist/left-wing etc? — Baden

I don't know what unenlightened meant by that. Do you? And I don't know what specific moves toward gender neutrality we're talking about. What moves? Who made them? Who is the opposition?

The moves, or some of them at least, are outlined in the gender-neutral education article in the OP. By the opposition, I mean those who were opposed to the idea in this thread. and also those who wrote in opposition to the APA guidelines. The latter representing one side of what un was referring to as the "politicised gender war".

What I am wanting to contrast here is the American culture that seems to be highly gendered and gender prescriptive, and adversarial, with the playing down of gender differences in Sweden. It seems to me that the whole tone of the debate in the US is overheated and ideological, and is putting great pressure on folks to conform or else to rebel to an extreme. But what seems to happen is that even the idea of reducing the conflict and relaxing the rigidity of the stereotypes is taken as a threat to gender and part of a campaign to emasculate and defemminise. — unenlightened

From this I took that he meant gender binary expectations were stronger in the US, which puts pressure on people to either confirm against their will or rebel for the sake of defying the oppressive binary. I got he was saying this seems to be the perpetual state of the discussion, to a point where it's impossible to pose a relaxed position that gender doesn't matter to imaging how someone might act or exist. It's seen by proponents gender binary side as destroying men and women.

In regard to the article about the Swedish school:

"State curriculum urges teachers and principals to embrace their role as social engineers, requiring them to “counteract traditional gender roles and gender patterns.”"

That's not going to happen in American public schools. Or I should say, over my dead body it will. That is not the role of public education. Even a small step in that direction would be extremely dangerous. The more benevolent the intention, the greater the danger due to the naivete and hubris of it.

That's just a deeply rooted principle in the US. Christians would love to enter schools and start doing social engineering. So would militant atheists. And the list goes on. The answer to the whole lot of them is: no.

That's not a politicized gender war, though. So un must have been talking about something else.