Gender Identity is an oxymoron

It is really quite fundamental to humans to do this, from displaying your sexuality to supporting a sports team to being a punk-rocker; there will always be human tribalism, and we will always communicate that within society through stereotypes.

Showing your allegiance to a team or group is nothing to do with stereotypes. You choose to join the group and maybe to dress in a certain way. And you can choose to leave. That is in no way comparable to the gender stereotypes imposed on us all because of our sex.

OK, Rat, so we agree it's all stereotypes and stereotypes exist. It's not really something we should be medicating and mutilating children for though, is it?

And it doesn't look like stereotypes are likely to disappear entirely; they may cease to serve a patriarchal purpose, but as long as they serve a social purpose of recognition they're going to stick around.

I don't understand this sentence. What is a 'social purpose of recognition'? Do you mean recognising someone's sex? Because you don't need stereotypes to tell you whether someone is male or female.

That doesn't work, Rat, because a child only knows they're gender non conforming by reference to the demands gender makes on others of their sex.

That is one of the two opposing position Prawn, right. The idea that they know it because they know their sex and they know the sex of those around them who are equally being imposed upon by gender.

The other side of the coin says that that isn't the whole story of why they know the difference.

I don't have any concrete personal determination of either being definitely the case incidentally, I'm just arguing the possibility. I really don't know which will come to be seen with hindsight as true; but I see both as possible. Only time will tell I suppose.

I don't for a second mind you telling me you're sure one way or the other, but for everyone sure on one side of the argument there's somebody equally sure on the other. And both sides are plausible. On the basis of our current understanding of the "gender negotiation", it's a fence I won't be coming off

is it in any way possible that you might know that even if you were completely blind to your physiology and the physiology of the other neck-extender-wearers?

I don't see how you can - unless pink/neck extenders are somehow (and I cant see that they can be, since they are culturally determined) intrinsically linked to being female.

I think by that point, you're back at personal taste. If neck rings or pink were tied to female, then they'd be more universal, rather than just appearing in some cultures.

Plus, plenty of boys like pink, or wear neck adornments - so it seems to me that either those boys are girls, or pink and necklaces aren't innate to one sex or the other. And I know which seems more likely to me, given my first paragraph.

If there were no stereotypes there would be no such thing as gender identity.

This is exactly what I was just discussing with Bowl; do you think it's at all possible that people will ever NOT leverage stereotypes? You know, not the stereotypes that are imposed on us, but the ones groups and individuals specifically use to show their belonging; to group themselves; to show their allegiance or intent?

It is really quite fundamental to humans to do this, from displaying your sexuality to supporting a sports team to being a punk-rocker; there will always be human tribalism, and we will always communicate that within society through stereotypes. We want to be identified as what we are. (Not always, mind you; sometimes we specifically don't want to be identified, and rejecting stereotypes helps us do that too).

The damaging, prescriptive stereotypes for which there are penalties for non-conformity; those are the ones we want rid of. But will that mean there are no visual social markers of one group of another? "Harmless" ones, that is?

I really don't think that's likely.

So "if there were no stereotypes there would be no gender identity"; perhaps. But for as long as there are stereotypes there will be identities. And it doesn't look like stereotypes are likely to disappear entirely; they may cease to serve a patriarchal purpose, but as long as they serve a social purpose of recognition they're going to stick around.

That doesn't work, Rat, because a child only knows they're gender non conforming by reference to the demands gender makes on others of their sex.

OP, I’m a woman because of my biology (I don’t believe i have a gender) but I was recently told that I definitely did have a gender identity and that I wasn’t qualified to say otherwise because I hadn’t read Judith Butler! That led to some very kind people on mumsnet giving me links to some very interesting material. After reading through the links (and giving up half way through Butler - it’s pretentious to the point of silliness), I came to the conclusion that gender can only be a social construct, and we are free to believe in gender or reject the concept.

I respect the beliefs of other people. I think most of us do. But I draw the line at allowing other people to impose their beliefs onto me. I’m also struggling with the ethics behind having to pretend I believe in gender to appease other people. I mean, I’ll never upset someone IRL, but that will involve being dishonest. I keep hearing about how “being your true self” is important but it’s as though that only applies if you believe in gender.

But Rat, it's still stereotypes. If there were no stereotypes there would be no such thing as gender identity.

If gender identity is all about stereotypes it cannot be innate.

It's all about responding to stereotypes, not about what those stereotypes actually are.

It's the difference between knowing you're a gender-non-conforming girl and a gender-conforming boy. Some would say you only know the difference because you know your body. Others say that you have a sense of being one or the other despite your body. It is those people who believe in a gender identity.

And yet there are a tiny group of people who believe they're not, for example, rejecting the stereotypes aimed at them, but that they're actually actively signalling the stereotypes they think should be aimed at them.

But this is still stereotypes. If gender identity is all about stereotypes it cannot be innate.

I think what gender identity is is an internalisation of the stereotype to the point where it feels innate.

I agree, and this applies whether you are internalising the gender stereotype that goes with your sex or the opposite sex one. But as soon as you see it for what it is, it is not possible to have a 'gender identity', because you understand that gender identity is the internalisation of stereotypes, and therefore not real.

and so know that neck extender's are supposed to

Terrible apostrophe misuse there.

The question I suppose we are asking is can a stereotype be an innate feeling? I don’t think it can, but I do think it’s embedded so deeply in our culture that, as you can see, we are having trouble just aski gcthe question.

See, I don't think it's a question of whether a stereotype can be innate, I think it's a question of whether or not "identity" can be distinct from and at odds with what is externally observed.

Pink for example - well that was a boys colour until 100 or so years back. So that’s a total societal switch. but it’s very deeply ingrained now.

The thing with pink is you may be a girly girl here in the west and so like pink, as it is so ingrained. You wake up one day in tribal Africa of years gone by and you see that "girly girls" wear neck extenders instead of pink. You, knowing you're a girl, abandon pink and don a neck extender.

The question is, do you know you're a girl (and so know that neck extender's are supposed to apply to you) only because you know you have a certain physiology, or is it in any way possible that you might know that even if you were completely blind to your physiology and the physiology of the other neck-extender-wearers?

It's an interesting question. It's a thought experiment I frequently try and play.

Even as a child, I was quite aware of how stereotypes were being used to teach me that as a girl I wasn't supposed to do certain things, but as soon as anyone said 'You can't do that, you're a girl', I'd immediately set out to show them that they were wrong, and I could do that. That didn't mean I thought I was a boy, or wanted to be a boy, I just resented them telling me that I was somehow inferior because I was a girl.

I was exactly the same OldCrone!

But for me that's why I'm a bit more open to the idea of gender identity; because I was totally rejecting of gender stereotypes, yet I still knew I was a girl. A girl rejecting the stereotypes aimed at her.

And yet there are a tiny group of people who believe they're not, for example, rejecting the stereotypes aimed at them, but that they're actually actively signalling the stereotypes they think should be aimed at them.

Some would say that that's what gender dysphoria is - and that that's a medical condition. Perhaps it is; perhaps they're right. Or perhaps it's not a medical condition at all, but a congenital fact of life for them that there is indeed some part of them which is "the other". And they know this as their identity, maybe? I don't know; I'm not being prescriptive about this here, just... musing.

the only point at which society won’t care is far future stuff - when we are able to manifest electronically/digitally and/or choose and swap our bodies at will. I’m reminded of EON by Greg Bear. Way off, anyway. Until then biology is relevant.

The question I suppose we are asking is can a stereotype be an innate feeling? I don’t think it can, but I do think it’s embedded so deeply in our culture that, as you can see, we are having trouble just aski gcthe question.

Pink for example - well that was a boys colour until 100 or so years back. So that’s a total societal switch. but it’s very deeply ingrained now.

I think what gender identity is is an internalisation of the stereotype to the point where it feels innate. I’d be very interested in the follow up work from that article and seeing what factors increase susceptibility/decrease it. What that article implies is that if you can encourage ‘innoculation’ against stereotypes in general you’re less susceptible to this mode of thinking.

Another reason really why I feel it’s inappropriate to target this at children. It feels a little like religious indoctrination to me.

What kids need to know is age appropriate info about their physical bodies (eg for a little kid what the bits do and which bits other people shouldn’t touch, like the PANTS campaign from the NSPCC) and then as they get older the appropriate factual sex Ed....and that girl or boy isnt something that stops you doing anything.

Beyond that, I’m very unhappy with any organisation pushing any kind of stuff on kids. It feels like indoctrination and I don’t think this is healthy at all.

But the manifestation as wanting to be the opposite sex is societally driven. Because if no one cared about the roles each gender played it couldnt happen.

From the New Scientist article you linked to earlier:
The results suggests that feminists are more keenly aware of gender stereotypes, even when they are presented subliminally, and automatically react to reject them

I think this is why feminists like me have such a problem understanding what a 'gender identity' is all about. Even as a child, I was quite aware of how stereotypes were being used to teach me that as a girl I wasn't supposed to do certain things, but as soon as anyone said 'You can't do that, you're a girl', I'd immediately set out to show them that they were wrong, and I could do that. That didn't mean I thought I was a boy, or wanted to be a boy, I just resented them telling me that I was somehow inferior because I was a girl.

If you are aware of gender stereotypes and how they are used against you all the time, I don't think it is possible to have a gender identity.

I’m not commenting on the extent to which nationality and gender are analagous.

I’m saying that Britishness is not innate.

The subject of the thread is the meaning of words. It’s important we all understand what is meant by words like identity, innate etc because they are key to what is being promoted in the concept of gender.

You cannot make a useful analogy, however superficial or deep, using untrue statements.

I didn't make the original analogy, and it wasn't originally intended to make the point you're now interrogating. No analogy is 100% analogous, or it wouldn't be an analogy. They all break down after a certain point.

It has nothing to do with how in-depth the conversation is.

Britishness cannot be innate.

You cannot make a useful analogy, however superficial or deep, using untrue statements.

Consciousness. We’ve been debating what the fuck it is since time began grin I still don’t think there’s consensus.

Yeah, agreed!

The philosophical side is certainly a little bit my area, although not past degree level.

I don’t think being trans is - predisposition to the group of dysphorias? Maybe. But the manifestation as wanting to be the opposite sex is societally driven. Because if no one cared about the roles each gender played it couldnt happen.

But is it possible that that society will ever completely not care about identifying themselves as one thing or another? It's possible - aspirational, even - that society won't care to typecast people on the basis of it (which is how "gender" is used to oppress women for example), but will we ever not group ourselves? I'm not sure that's a realistic possibility. And if it isn't realistic, trans can always happen.

t is possible in your mind that there might be some emergent quality of that physical person that right now we can't externally measure, but that they are internally aware of?

Consciousness. We’ve been debating what the fuck it is since time began I still don’t think there’s consensus.

entire theses have been written on what it is. You’ve got a reductionist approach, an emergent network approach and a religious approach and probably many others (this is totally not my field but it’s an interesting one...)

There is no single gay gene - there is probably a strong genetic component but it's not one or even a few genes. Being gay appears to have a biological origin AND an adaptive advantage (siblings of gay males seem to have increased reproductive success and homosexual behaviour is seen across the animal kingdom.) whatever being gay is, it’s far more likely to be innate.

I don’t think being trans is - predisposition to the group of dysphorias? Maybe. But the manifestation as wanting to be the opposite sex is societally driven. Because if no one cared about the roles each gender played it couldnt happen.

And nation states are a recent invention, so it is impossible for someone to feel innately that they are a citizen of any nation state.

Precisely one of the reasons why this analogy has ceased to be useful.

It was useful for establishing the notion of a feedback loop; not so much for more in depth discussion about whether or not there can be some innate sense of one's identity.

So those of you who think you know what 'gender identity' is, can you explain it in terms that a five-year-old could understand?

I don't really know what Mermaids are going around telling 5 year olds, and I'm certainly not confident that I'd agree with it.

I think all a 5 year old needs to know about gender identity is that just because you're a girl or a boy doesn't mean you have to do things that are "girly" or "boyish", and that that's completely okay.

...not even sure "gender identity" means the same thing in that context as what we're talking about here!

Doesn't help that there are so many different uses of the same words/phrases in this debate. That't not unique to trans issues though. Words mean different things in different contexts all the time; even "identity" means something different in psychology and in sociology. Undoubtedly it means something different in common parlance too. That's all just par for the course in any discussion though I think.

personally I think this is too confusing for young children to grasp

It's confusing enough for adults tbh, myself included!

And nation states are a recent invention, so it is impossible for someone to feel innately that they are a citizen of any nation state.

‘What is it that I “know” if I know I am British but do not know I was born in Britain?‘

British means a person with citizenship of the UK. If you don’t know you have citizenship, you don’t know you are British.