In other news... It's pride month and my employer is completely on board. They even include helpful articles and self-study modules on LGBTQIA+ topics. Oddly, the overwhelming majority of the focus is on the T element of that, even though they say the entire acronym out loud every single time.
Their self-study module includes the
Genderbread Person, and comes with some very handy definitions.
Here are some of the definitions (not linked, because it's a corporate intranet site).
Sex refers to physical and biological features, and might include things like chromosomal make-up, genitalia, and hormone output.
That's a decent start. Moving on:
Gender identity on the other hand is a social construct. This means it's the attributes, characteristics, clothing, attitudes, roles and more that we as a society typically assign to a sex. The most baseline example of this is that boys like blue, and girls like pink. Of course, a female child does not come out of the womb intrinsically enamored with pink. It's something they may pick up from family, parents, tradition, media, toys and so much more. Beyond color preferences however, gender also impacts hw you're perceived, what privileges (or lack thereof) you may be privy to, what stereotypes people hold about you, etc.
Hmm. This reinforces my observation that gender identity is entirely based on stereotypes. It's almost entirely defined in terms of stereotypes. As a plus, however, at least it's not defining gender identity in terms of how one innately feels on the inside as a circular definition. Additionally, the definition recognizes that these stereotypes are ASSIGNED on the basis of sex, and that those assignations come with (or without) social privileges.
Unfortunately, the internally written article then goes on to give examples where a person is born male, but doesn't identify with the culture and aspects of being a woman... and so that person is a transgender woman.
On the plus side, the author isn't claiming that sex is 'assigned at birth', which I like, even though it's a small thing. Additionally, they don't redefine the person to be a woman, but a transgender woman. Again, it's small thing, but small things matter.
On the downside though... because gender identity is defined in terms of conformation to social stereotypes based on sex, it means that a LOT of people end up being told that they aren't their actual gender. It means that I, as a female who disregards the vast majority of "girly" stereotypes, and who finds them to be utterly ridiculous, would be viewed by these definitions as being transgender. This definition makes me either a man or non-binary... regardless of whether I think that makes any sense at all.
The definition of sexual orientation that they're using is... interesting and a bit incomplete:
Sexual orientation is not purely sexual! A person's orientation is simply the genders or identities a person is romantically or physically attracted to.
Apparently sexual orientation isn't about sexual attraction? Additionally, I don't really know what distinction they're drawing between romantic and physical attraction. I mean, sure, it's possible to be physically attracted to someone without being emotionally attracted to them... But if you're "romantically" attracted to someone without being sexually attracted to them, that's called friendship. Emotional attraction and bonding in the absence of sexual attraction is familial love. If both are present it's romantic love. If only sexual attraction is present, it's just lust.
The article also defines gender and orientation to be on a spectrum... but doesn't include sex in that, which is a plus.
All in all, I think this is a fairly reasonable tight-rope walk by my employer. I feel like maybe they threw in the towel on sexual orientation, because I don't think there's a way to include, ferinstance, male people who are exclusively attracted to male people and are commonly referred to as homosexual men... alongside transgender identified female people who are exclusively attracted to male people and call themselves homosexual men.
