I think we should use the word 'personality' more

And one of the points I'm trying to make is that my "gender identity" is not innate at all, but learned. I had to come to terms with having a female body (messy, weirdly shaped, short, etc) and with having to deal with feminine gender-shit and social restrictions and sexual vulnerability - all of which are learned adaptations to the world and not innate at all.

Gender identity, however, is that innate aspect of our psyche, our sense of self that tells us whether we have a feminine, masculine, both, or neither type of gender.

Hm. So what do you mean by a "gender identity" that is "neither type of gender"?

I have a "gender identity" in the weak sense that I can look at myself and say yes, I'm female, and I can live with that, and I can also live with most of the social gender shit that comes alongside, though I might not like all of it (and thank goodness for feminism, which means I can change some of it). Which would make my "gender identity" feminine I suppose?

But on the other hand, if I woke up tomorrow in a male body I would not be making any effort to get my female body and social role back. I'd be learning to live in a male body and a man's social role, same as I had to learn to live in a female body and a woman's social role over the years. I sure as sugar would not be having any kind of "corrective" surgery to give myself a disfunctional female-looking body instead of a fully functioning male one, nor even trying to get back into women's spaces nor expect other people to treat me as a woman just because that's what I was accustomed to. I'd be trying to get myself accepted as a man with my own variant of masculinity. So does my lack of commitment to femininity mean that my gender identity is "neither type of gender"?

Or does a gender identity of "neither type of gender" mean that I would be most comfortable in a body with no sex-distinct sexual or reproductive organs at all? (Which I wouldn't.)

Or does it mean something quite different from any of those?

Good idea.

A 'sense' can mean a physical response to a stimulus (eg sight, hearing, balance), but it can also mean an awareness of something that may not connect to a stimulus (eg time) or that may relate to a societal perception (eg status). I am certain that a sense of 'self' exists, otherwise how could we be aware of ourselves as individuals, separate to others? Babies appear to have no sense of self at first, and only exhibit separation anxiety when they begin to develop a sense of themselves as separate to their caregivers - and therefore at risk of abandonment.

A baby's sense of self is very fragile and depends upon their caregiver's presence to keep them safe. A baby does not understand that she is still safe even when Mummy has left the room.

As we mature, our sense of self becomes more and more complex, influenced hugely by society and our experiences. The person who is constantly dependent upon others to validate their sense of self, is either extremely vulnerable, like a baby, or extremely controlling, like a narcissist.

This has been a really interesting thread, thanks to everyone who has taken the time to contribute.

Like others I have appreciated @Discovereads putting across the case for gender identity so patiently and thoroughly and articulately. I mean this respectfully, but for me, what has been made clear is that when you have both positions explained in detail, by smart people talking in good faith, without name calling or distractions, it is very plain that the genderist ideology just does not hold up at all.

The definitions are all circular, the need to characterise personality traits as masculine or feminine is clearly problematic and upholds sexism, and there's absolutely nothing to support the idea that such a subjective and nebulous concept as 'gender identity' should be elevated over the verifiable material reality of sex in law or in any aspect of life where separation of males and females is advisable.

I never said that radical feminists denied gender exists. But feminists like MacKinnon, Millet, Irigaray (admittedly not rad fem), de Beavoir have all argued that gender does not flow naturally from the fact there are two sexes. The fact we have two sexes does not mean a hierarchical gendered system is inevitable and thus gender abolition is a utopian dream. Yes, gender exists and is real, but it is ultimately a social construct grounded in biology and so amenable to change and reform. The mere fact of sexual difference does not mean gender HAS to thereby follow. But gender is ancient and universal and so appears to be something which is natural and a fact of life … we can get rid of race, we can get rid of class, but we are stuck with gender. There are some rad fems who have denied this. And then you get some postmodernists who say that the existence of two sexes isn’t a given, but as you can see on mumsnet that approach is generally seen to be counter productive and anti scientific.

On the points about gender identity, I find it very interesting that gender identity is descended as “innate”. Usually, an innate cognitive feature is something we are born with that isn’t learned - like language, the ability to recognise faces, our recognition of basic physical laws like gravity. Gender doesn’t seem to be innate in the same way as it surely depends on the social system of gender. If gender didn’t exist would we still have gender identity ?

And I also find it interesting that gender is described as a “sense of self”. I’m not even sure that the concept of the “self” is something that is a given. Some cultures don’t have a very strong idea that there is a “self” , and self hood is highly variable depending on the society. But what does it mean to say you have a “sense” of self ? A “sense” is usually a cognitive mechanism that takes in data and produces a sensory perception at the end- vision, smell etc. What does the self sense do? Why do we have it ? I certainly cannot introspect and detect a sense of self. I’m sorry for being fussy , but this is why I find these concepts so hard to grasp.

This review from 2020 summarises the state of research into the question of how brains might show differences in either structure or activity by transgender status. At least up to that point the findings were inconclusive and most studies used very small sample sizes.

Our brains show plasticity, so finding or not finding differences in brain structures or activity doesn't actually mean that something innate has been shown to exist or not to exist. The London cabbies in the past developed giant long-term memory areas because they had to memorise a vast number of addresses, long-term depression changes brain patterns and so on.

As a teacher, when the kids start spouting their gender manifesto, I always say "yes, lots of people believe in innate gender identity, and these days that can be a very complicated and emotive topic, something of a minefield in fact. But lots of other people believe simply in biological sex, and individual personality".

First, gender exists because we have two sexes and it is a fact of life, it’s neither feminist nor anti-feminist.

How the concept of gender is defined within a particular culture is an important feminist question. Iceland and Saudi Arabia both have male and female people and both cultures also have gender roles and rules, but the latter are very, very different. It is the task of feminism to interrogate gender, because the way in which it is turned into real-world rules and restriction and traditions is one of the major channels used in the subjugation of women and also in the liberation of women.

Gender identity, however, is that innate aspect of our psyche, our sense of self that tells us whether we have a feminine, masculine, both, or neither type of gender.

I don't believe in such an innate identity, though I am willing to accept that some others do. Because gender identity is not a verifiable concept, believing in it should be treated as other forms of unverifiable belief. It certainly should not replace biological sex in the legal systems. Sex-based oppression is a major global problem and needs to be properly addressed.

Note, also, that what is regarded as masculine or feminine is affected by cultural and religious traditions and shows considerable variation both historically and cross-culturally.

Cultural and class identity are definitely not innate.

@Discovereads I'd like to echo the other posters, thank you.

Ok
Gender is both culturally and socially constructed and an aspect of the innate psyche? Gender is a cultural and social construct derived from the fact we have two sexes, it’s commonly thought of as a spectrum with male and female at two poles and trans somewhere inbetween. I think gender is a bit more complex and more like over lapping circles. But this is a fast developing area of thought so I’m not saying I’m the authority or anything, these are my thoughts based in what I’ve read on the subject. Gender identity, however, is that innate aspect of our psyche, our sense of self that tells us whether we have a feminine, masculine, both, or neither type of gender. It’s important to distinguish between gender and gender identity,…and other terms as well as they all mean different things.

By the way, I do think your comparing gender identity to personality is a good analogy, but I don’t think gender identity is the same as or a synonym for personality, if that makes sense? To me, gender identity is similar to say cultural identity or class identity. It’s inherent, innate, and affects your personality but isn’t the core you, your personality that is wholly unique as a human being.

“How does that work in a social or cultural context that says the role of 'woman' is incompatible with schooling, voting, or public life? Should women in that situation accept that either their innate psyche aligns comfortably with that subjugated role, or else they are experiencing a mismatch between their innate psyche and what society expects of their sex, and therefore must be trans?”

This crosses over into the question of gender roles. Which are not gender identity or gender. The gender role examples you listed are not really gender related imho but rather roles assigned based on sex. It goes back to how gender has been misused as a tool of oppression. In other words: voting, schooling, any rights are not a true gender difference. It’s masquerading as a gender role difference in order to justify the subjugation of women due to their sex. It’s our job as feminists to deconstruct and analyse any gender role or stereotype to judge is this really a gender difference, or is it the misuse of gender to justify oppression of our sex? I hope this answers your questions.

Same to you. This whole thread has been really good and respectful from all viewpoints.

So - gender identity can be defined as an innate and compelling sense of whether one is male or female, which may or may not be outwardly observable depending on the extend to which the individual complies (voluntarily or under compulsion) with the stereotypes of male or female behaviour peculiar to that particular time and place?
Is that it?

Oh come now... Billions of people believe in innate gender identities? There are only about 8 billion people in the world, most not living in the West. I would imagine many of them believe in innate differences between men and women, yes. (I would think many of them live lives that make those differences more salient). I cannot imagine many of them believe in independent gender identities that mix and match between the sexes. This is a very modern American belief. Certainly some societies are keen on policing masculinity - such as Iran with its sex changes for gay men, and the often-mentioned tribal cultures with "third genders" which turns out to be a way to deal with effeminate men (note "third" - they are not sent off to the menstrual huts).

@Discovereads , I'm not sure we do agree (re: your last paragraph). Are you saying that the normal state of affairs is to feel like you are the sex that you are (if one considers this a feeling at all), but that certain factors (like what?) can prompt the brain to reshape itself thus inducing the person to feel themselves to be the opposite sex? Would this be a neurological problem, a similar type of condition to phantom limb syndrome? Could it be induced by unhappy life events, i.e. a condition in the realm of psychiatric trauma? Look, I'm not a psychologist so I'll stop there, but I think it's fair to say there are many possible explanations for the phenomenon you suggest, without needing to believe in the rightful-satnav theory of gender identity.

My question about Sam is pretty simple: what is the relevance and meaning of someone's declared gender identity, when by your own admission it has nothing to do with what we normally understand about sex and gender roles? (Although you have since said that it might have a bit to do with gender role conformity after all... Seems quite a slippery definition to pin down.). What does or should it have to do with the members of the sex with which they identify? Basically, what do I have in common with a TW (and please don't say that we share a "gender identity"!).

I think the "so what" questions are more important, actually. You believe in innate gender identities, I don't - OK. We are all entitled to draw conclusions and to hold beliefs that bring us meaning or comfort - I'm sure I believe things that other people might find silly. But since this belief is the cornerstone of so much political activism and actual law and policy - I ask so what if there are gender identities? Why would that entitle Emily Bridges or Lia Thomas to compete in the women's race? When you look at it like that, gender identity surely fits better under the heading of "personality" than anything close to sex. Do you agree that there are situations where self-declared gender identities are irrelevant and biological sex should be the divider? Do you believe there are any situations that should be segregated by gender identity? If so, why not just make them fully mixed sex?

Thank you for engaging civilly - you don't need to be the spokesperson for all who believe in gender identity, but I am interested in your responses.

As for "gender is also an innate state of being", that is your belief, not a fact.

That’s “gender identity” is an innate state of being/sense of self. The term “gender” is much broader and has a different definition. Well, if it’s a belief, it’s a science based one held by billions of people including neuroscientists, psychologists and so on. It’s defined in the dictionaries. It’s used in common discourse. No one denies the existence of gender identity…unless you are by calling it “not a fact”? It’s about as close to a fact as you can get these days.

@SpringBadger
Ill try and answer as best I can
1. Gender identity is part of innate psyche, nothing to do with gender conformity or nonconformity,. No, I did not say gender conforming has nothing to do with gender identity. I stated (in a round about way), that gender nonconformance does not by itself determine your gender identity or whether you are transgender or not. It contributes. So it’s not nothing but it also doesn’t determine.

2. That gender roles are essential because ultimately they derive from the two sexes.. No, I actually stated that gender exists because we have two sexes and so therefore cannot realistically be abolished. (I never said anything about gender roles or them being essential).

In regards to Sam, you’ve lost me. But
most people's "gender identity" derives from their real-world knowledge and lived experience that they are a certain sex I would agree with this as most people do not experience gender dysphoria so their gender identity seems a natural derivative of their life knowledge and experiences as their sex. But for a minority of people, their gender identity differs from the norms for their sex despite the same life knowledge and experiences. The human brain is more plastic than formerly thought. It can develop along vastly different pathways even in similar environments.

Oh great, the lady brain has been (re)discovered. I thought those studies were older ones looking at the lesser-spotted homosexual transexuals, but I see this is newer and looking at kids. I'm not an academic or scientist (many here are) so I've nothing to say about the methodology, but do you not think it might be putting the cart before the horse? i.e. young people who feel that they think differently to others of their sex, are more likely to latch onto gender identity as an explanation? We know autistic girls are hugely overrepresented, and of course there is the notorious "male brain" theory of autism.

@Discovereads , is your argument not contradictory? You are saying that 1. Gender identity is part of innate psyche, nothing to do with gender conformity or nonconformity, and 2. That gender roles are essential because ultimately they derive from the two sexes. What does 1 have to do with 2? You also, I think, say (sensibly, if so) that trans-identified people need not alter their bodies - so it's neither to do with social roles nor to do with being in the "wrong body".

This basically leaves us with a gendered soul, swirling about in an endlessly circular definition. Sam feels that Sam is female therefore Sam is female but also yes there are biologically female people in the world and conventions attached to the female sex but this has nothing to do with Sam other than Sam feels an intense need to be categorised with them in every context and at the level of policy and law and therefore Sam's will be done. Does this about sum it up, or if not can you fill in the gaps?

(Name Sam chosen at random as generic unisex name)

I put it to you that most people's "gender identity" derives from their real-world knowledge and lived experience that they are a certain sex. It's a false thought experiment to imagine our horror at waking up one day in "the wrong body", because this is not what happens.

@ThisIsJeopardy
Exactly. Radical feminists have always recognised the existence of gender and its use as a tool of oppression. And some of these are gender abolitionists. As I said several posts ago. Glad we agree on that.

Secondly, gender is also an innate state of being and it’s existence has been seen/documented using MRI brain scans. “Brain activity and structure in transgender adolescents more closely resembles the typical activation patterns of their desired gender, according to new research. “ www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm

This isn’t the only study by the way, the above has been replicated in other studies.

@ThisIsJeopardy
”you point out that gender non-conformity isn't new, and of course it isn't. But what it used to mean was: "I don't adhere to all the social and cultural expectations ascribed to womanhood, because those are just oppressive sexist stereotypes. I can reject them and live my life how I choose, and am no less a woman for that." The ideology you are defending has changed the meaning of 'gender non-conforming' to mean: "I don't adhere to all the social and cultural expectations ascribed to womanhood, so that means maybe I'm not really a woman and my 'gender identity' must be transman or nonbinary."

I don’t agree I’m defending that particular branch of ideology. Gender nonconforming simply describes the degree to which an individual's appearance, behavior, interests, and subjective self-concept deviate from conventional norms for masculinity/femininity. Being gender nonconforming doesn’t mean you’re not really a woman (or man) or that you are transgender. You can be transgender and be completely gender conforming. Gender conformance is performance. It’s not the innate psyche that is your gender identity.