Keir Starmer says he doesn’t want schools teaching young people about transgender identities

[u/PinkNews]

https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/06/25/keir-starmer-trans-education-general-election-2024/

[u/potpan0]

I'm not really sure you're getting what OP is saying here.

Trans people, or people who are gender non-conforming, have existed throughout human history and across human societies. I can look to Ancient Rome, or to pre-1492 Americas, or pre-colonial Africa, and find plenty of examples of people who did not conform to a rigid and biologically determined gender binary. Were they ever a majority? No, but they existed.

However, a small people of transphobes insist that trans people only came into existence in the 1900s, as part of a nefarious ideological attempt to destabilise the traditional family or attack women or some similar guff. They describe this process as 'gender ideology', and insist this 'ideology' was created very recently. It's a dangerous attempt to dehistoriocise trans people, to reject the vast historical evidence of trans and gender non-conforming people existing in human societies and therefore present trans people as dishonest charlatans lying about their identity. And that's why it's so particularly galling to be seeing a leader of a British political party, one who has ostensibly claimed to stand up for minority groups, repeating this.

For what it's worth homophobes and racists have took a similar approach too. Homophobes insisted that homosexuality only came into existence in the 1900s, and a common racist line is that the term 'racism' was invented in the Soviet Union in the early 1900s (and therefore that anyone complaining about racism is an evil communist).

[u/j0kerclash → u/potpan0]

"who did not conform to a rigid and biologically determined gender binary"

Gender non-conforming people don't behave solely within the bounds of typical gender roles, but this says nothing about the gender binary.

Someone who's gender non conforming can simply see feminine and masculine traits as part of a spectrum of behaviour rather than defining themselves as distinct from the gender typically associated with their sex.

I understand the idea of ideology being used for malicious cultural purposes though, but I still think any counter culture that opposes it shouldn't obfuscate what gender is.

[u/potpan0 → u/j0kerclash]

Gender non-conforming people don't behave solely within the bounds of typical gender roles, but this says nothing about the gender binary.

The existence of gender non-conforming people says a hell of a lot about the 'gender binary', I don't get what you mean. Traditionalists insist that, before the 1900s, everyone was either 'man' or 'woman' and that this was determined entirely by biology. But a knowledge of history demonstrates that across the world there have been plenty of people, often very much accepted by their broader social systems, who challenged that, either by sitting on a position which was not 'man' or 'woman' or transitioning between them.

but I still think any counter culture that opposes it shouldn't obfuscate what gender is.

How do you think gender is being 'obfuscated'?

[u/j0kerclash → u/potpan0]

It's being obfuscated by dismissing gender identity and the factors that determine it for an individual as biologically innate like sexuality rather than a system of belief influenced by cultural norms.

Like you mentioned, other societal norms include additional genders, but it's not like the two systems are made up of dramatically distinct groups in regards to biology, both are human groups, it's a different way of labelling gender with different cultural norms being the main factor.

[u/opaldrop → u/j0kerclash]

Gender identity is to at least a significantly degree objectively biologically innate. This can be seen in twin studies pretty readily.

[u/potpan0 → u/j0kerclash]

It's being obfuscated by dismissing gender identity and the factors that determine it for an individual as biologically innate like sexuality rather than a system of belief influenced by cultural norms.

Sorry, I'm struggling to parse this sentence. It seems to me that you're suggesting:

1) Gender is biologically determined

2) Sexuality is biologically determined

Both of which are, quite frankly, nonsense. The mere existence of gay people pretty clearly demonstrates the second point is nonsense, and the long-term historical examples of gender non-conforming people demonstrates the first point is nonsense too.

[u/j0kerclash → u/potpan0]

I'm saying gender is not biologically determined and that sexuality is influenced heavily by biology.

The existence of gay people doesn't contradict that point, I'm just pointing to a biological component relating to the triggers of sexuality for any person, gay, or straight.