Staying on topic- threads in general

Galaxy

That's why we have to fight the stereotypes and the notion that there there is a way to live or dress 'as a woman'

Hallelujah!

I live with men. I am tall and strong and masculine. I do a male job. I am quite literally the only woman in my workplace at times. I like male interests and wear practical clothing which isn't at all feminine. I'm sure the men I worked with would think I was ludicrous if I said I felt like a man and the most difficult thing about it was managing to urinate in the actual toilet bowl. As for wanting to use their toilets...

That reading was lovely

Galaxy
That's why we have to fight the stereotypes and the notion that there there is a way to live or dress 'as a woman'

Hallelujah.

The two images Trisha shared do not IMO show a man and a woman challenging gender stereotypes. Drag queens aren’t new. Women working in trouser suits - definitely not new. I was doing it in the 60’s, my mum looked wonderful in okeated trousers with turn ups, a plain blouse and hacker in 1947.

I ageee with those who worry our children, well our grandchildren, are overly exposed to specific gendered toys

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202110/medium-134464-screenshot-2021-10-26-at-19-33-50.png https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202110/medium-211148-screenshot-2021-10-26-at-19-54-13.png

The two images Trisha shared do not IMO show a man and a woman challenging gender stereotypes. Drag queens aren’t new. Women working in trouser suits - definitely not new.

No. Here are some less recent examples. What they prove, apart from that anyone can Google Image search, I'm not sure; but they definitely show that neither women in trouser suits nor men in drag are new.

In Shakespeare's time the women's roles were played by men, and the men were dressed accordingly.

I don't think I claimed that drag queens were new or that women haven't worn trousers. I was repudiating the idea that transpeople are just people who want to dress differently and if we let them do that they would be fine. There are people who choose to dress and present differently they are not transpeople. Transpeople believe they have the wrong body. Personal assertions may be interesting but they do nothing to deal with people who really feel they are in the wrong body. All they prove is that if you want to dress a certain way you can do.

Doodledog I'm afraid I still don't understand your post about gender dysphoria. When I asked if you thought there were two sorts of transpeople the gender dysphoric and others you chose instead to assign that belief to me which realy doesn't answer the question does it?
I was thinking that your post reminded me of some of the things which used to be said about gay people. "Oh it's just a phase," "She'll grow out of it" Or their mothers were blamed for being too controlling and turning men off women.
We now know that there are differences in homosexual brains www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84496-z
In the future sciencce may identify differences for transpeople.

It wasn't a point, but a question. I had already made the point that gender 'norms' are not innate, but learned, as evidenced by the examples given, that they change over time and are culturally specific. Therefore, someone male wanting to 'present as female (and ^vice versa^) can't 'know' that they are in the 'wrong' body unless there is more to it than being drawn to the trappings of the female gender (or ^vice versa^).

I then said If people are revolted by their bodies in genuine dysmorphia, that is different, isn’t it? That is a question, not a statement, incidentally. It still has to be a learnt response to their body though, doesn’t it, as gender norms vary so much?
It may not be as clear as it could be, but what I meant was that (1) a rejection of learnt norms is simply that, so (2) it is possible to remain as one's own sex, but choose to conform to the gender norms of the other (or pick and mix), so I was asking (3) how someone who looked at their body, as opposed to the transient trappings of gender identity and knew it was 'wrong' arrived at that conclusion. Doesn't the same apply? (ie the 'fact' that a male body needs to be associated with what we, in this time and place, see as 'male' norms is just learnt behaviour.

There will, no doubt, be both body dysmorphic transpeople, just as there are body dysmorphic non-trans people. I don't see people in terms of that 'divide', however. Nor do I see dysmorphia as a phase, or blame anything on mothers, and didn't suggest that I did.

Further, as far as I'm concerned, it really doesn't matter why people want to transition. It is their choice, and their lives, so nothing to do with me, and if someone chooses to do it there is no question of 'blame'.

All I object to is the erasure of women through the co-option of the language, and the colonisation of research results and safe spaces that women have fought for for so long, by allowing anyone who wants to to claim female status with no questions asked.

If people are revolted by their bodies in genuine dysmorphia, that is different, isn’t it? That is a question, not a statement, incidentally. It still has to be a learnt response to their body though, doesn’t it, as gender norms vary so much?
But has often been pointed out physicality doesn't vary so revulsion with a body has absolutely nothing to do with gender norms it is to do with the body. There may be a reason which will eventually be discovered either in the brain, exposure to hormones or some other factor. There is no evidence that this is learned behaviour.

trisher I've read the study you linked to, and would need a lot longer to fully examine it, but I'm not at all sure it's the conclusive evidence you seem to think it is of there being 'homosexual' brains. It says within the article, which is not a comprehensive peer reviewed study, that there was data they didn't have due to technical difficulties. They also recommend many variables that need examining in future studies, so nothing definite at all. Interesting, and maybe indicative of something, but inconclusive overall.

Thinking about*Doodledog*'s assertion that the reason more men help with childcare now is because both parents are working made me realise that people are either unaware of gender norms in the 1950s, or of the role of working class women in the 1950s. My mother worked full time from the time I was about 7 years old (part time before that). My dad didn't do housework, or look after children. He would play cricket with us, or cards, or take us to the park occasionally and for that he was regarded as a wonderful husband. A lot of dads didn't even do that. One of the jobs my mum had was leading a team of catalogue women, who took mail order catalogues door to door,
I imagine most of them did all the housework and childcare.
So both partners were working then, but housework and childcare were women's work. Gender roles have changed and now women expect men to do their share and the working situation is irrelevant. Men are learning to be more caring and look after their children

Rosie51 there are quite a few different studies if you are interested, most seem to conclude there's a high possibility of brain differences. But I agree more research is needed

Gender roles have changed

Indeed. They are not innate. They are not immutable. They change with time, place and culture, which is the point I was making. It was, IMO, because of the Equal pay legislation that more men could stay at home with their children, and not, as trisher would have it, that there are a significant number of young men who love their children and actually want to be actively involved in raising them. It's a step towards men being caring and emotional, something which they were expected in the past to reign in..

Yes, men are better able to make that choice now, but not because they are individually challenging gender norms, or because young men love their children more than previous generations, but because of changes to political policies which made those choices possible.

Doodledog

*Gender roles have changed*

Indeed. They are not innate. They are not immutable. They change with time, place and culture, which is the point I was making. It was, IMO, because of the Equal pay legislation that more men could stay at home with their children, and not, as trisher would have it, that there are a significant number of young men who love their children and actually want to be actively involved in raising them. It's a step towards men being caring and emotional, something which they were expected in the past to reign in..

Yes, men are better able to make that choice now, but not because they are individually challenging gender norms, or because young men love their children more than previous generations, but because of changes to political policies which made those choices possible.

Do you really not understand that for my dad's generation caring for your children was seen as weak and unmasculine, that many women brought into this and used fathers as disciplinarians? (Wait till your father gets home!). (Now I'm going to be accused of denegrating women again) But that is how it was.
Apparently now it's legislation and not both parents working that changed things.
My mother was challenging gender norms 60+ years ago, when she taught my brother to cook (he stopped when he got married) and when she became probably the first travelling saleswoman in E. Yorkshire.
Why not jut admit that men are changing- not all men of course but a significant number? I spent an interesting afternoon last week discussing the birth of their babies with two new dads. They were both over the moon and very emotional about the whole event.

I am not really clear what men being involved with their children has to do with anything. Many things are better for women if that's the point you are making, and some things are worse, the consumption of porn has led to real difficulties for young women which werent faced by previous generations. I have just seen a t shirt for women which says choke me as if you hate me.

Trisher you do know most of us live with men we arent in some sort of segregated group .

Not agreeing does not automatically equate to not understanding, trisher.

Yes, gender norms evolve, but just as they changed during the war, and changed back again afterwards, in many cases they are driven by changes in political thinking and economics, every bit as much as by changes in individuals.

And it’s not about ‘admitting’ anything. Disagreeing with you is not a crime.

Also, new dads have surely always been over the moon and excited about the birth of their children. My husband was at the birth of both of mine, and whereas that was not allowed in my father's day, I have no reason to assume that he wasn't excited about the birth of his children.

trisher what point are you trying to make about gender norms?
We know that those change and that sex does not.
Wanting to identify with different gender norms than the currently usual ones for a particular sex doesn't mean that a person is actually the opposite sex.

It's astonishing that so many people, in society generally, seem unable to understand that.

(My grandmother, in the early 1900s, made sure to teach domestic work to her 6 sons, as well as to her 2 daughters. My dad was very happy to continue doing these things and I also remember him spending a lot of time playing/teaching/generally looking after me when I was under 5.)

So how many people do you think your husband discussed the birth with Doodledog?. Of course men were thrilled to have children it's the talking openly about the subject and their feelings which is progress.
Galaxy It wasn't me who started discussing gender norms. I realise there have always been caring men, but I do think now young men are doing more and talking more about families and children. I don't imagine this is in anyway much to do with. transpeople. I realise that gender dysphoria is completely a seperate issue. Still it's interesting to see how Doodledog shifts when her assertions are questioned.
Your comments about porn are interesting I remember in the 2010s some news items about how women were making their own porn films. It does seem to have died out. I looked on line and found a Guardian artice from 2011 there was a link to a female director she was called Erika Lust- I decided she probably wasn't real. Quite what the situation is now I'm not sure. I think most porn isn't female friendly. I don't think it harms just women, its effect on teenage boys is terrible.

Yes it damages everyone in my view.

Unfortunately it's linked to injuries to females of a sexual nature, especially due to the normalisation of anal sex in porn

Btw before I am pulled up on this, my comment it is not to be confused with homosexuals who practice safe anal sex without causing injury to one another.

Why am I posting this on Gransnet

So how many people do you think your husband discussed the birth with Doodledog?. Of course men were thrilled to have children it's the talking openly about the subject and their feelings which is progress.

The dads in the NCT group had regular discussions about their feelings, and it was 30 years ago. What has this to do with anything?

What you describe as my 'assertions' are simply my opinions - I'm not 'shifting' or 'admitting' or defending anything. This is getting really wearing, as what my husband or your parents did is anecdotal at best, and it feels like you are desperately clutching at straws now.

The point of the post you are trying to pick holes in was that gender norms are not changing because of trans issues - they have always shifted, and they vary hugely between different cultural and sub-cultural groups. At least some of that is because of political and economic circumstances, and some of it will simply be that some individuals are less conformist than others, or are bound by less rigid social pressures.

(this post was brought to you by the word 'some')