Definitions of 'gender identity'

A lot of people, though, despite the lack of scientific evidence for this — and despite all the decades of evidence in psychological and social research showing clearly how we're affected by cultural expectations from birth onwards — retain the reactionary and regressive belief that males and females have different ways of thinking, abilities, emotions, minds and even spirits or souls. Someone who feels they're actually, literally, the opposite sex holds this (patently false) belief that non-physical attributes (such as feeling sensitive to others' emotions, or being very analytically-minded, or not liking competitive sports) are based in biological differences. They then deduce from this false premise that there must be differences e.g. in brain structure (which haven't yet been found despite the extraordinary lengths scientists have gone to over the centuries to try to produce evidence to give moral backup to societal discrimination and oppression based on these alleged differences).

So they're not saying they "want" to be a different sex or looking at their body and seeing a different body there: they just been brought up to believe that gender constructs are biological reality and are taking those beliefs to their logical conclusion when they know their own personalities don't match those typically ascribed to their sex.

The majority of the UK population, trans or not, sees things this way: hence the support for trans beliefs over gender critical feminist beliefs.

So, I think someone identifying as male, can be starting with I’m male as a pre-stored idea about themselves (i.e. developed in the past with no conscious recollection of the process, like how most people probably can’t remember the actual process of learning what sex they were), and where their idea of what ‘male’ means in association to themselves is not necessarily defined.

But male has a definition. It's absurd to start using the word 'male' to mean whatever you want it to mean. If you do that with all words, then language becomes meaningless.

Male means of the sex which produces sperm. Starting from that point, what would make a female person think she was male?

If you think about it, when you think about yourself, there are two directions you can take: starting with details and then progressing upwards to an encompassing concept. So, like, I have this body part, and that body part, that equals I’m female. Or you can start from an encompassing concept and then progress to details. So, because female is a concept you have already associated with yourself, you can go directly when you are thinking, to I’m female, and then progress to detail of what that means for you, and what you associate with that concept and/or yourself, if you want to, or you might just stop at the thought I’m female. You don’t have to inspect your body each time you think about yourself and conclude you’re female afresh every time, in order to think you’re female, and you don’t need to think about what female means.

So, I think someone identifying as male, can be starting with I’m male as a pre-stored idea about themselves (i.e. developed in the past with no conscious recollection of the process, like how most people probably can’t remember the actual process of learning what sex they were), and where their idea of what ‘male’ means in association to themselves is not necessarily defined.

Then they think about what having the thought they’re male means, to varying degrees depending on the person. They might think it means they’re trans, they might think it means they’re in the wrong body, they might think it means they’re nonbinary, if they recognise also thinking they are female, etc. Maybe they might dismiss it. They might have a variety of beliefs about the origin of the thought (it’s a mistake to think they will necessarily believe the thought originates from a gender essence in my view). They might also associate different ideas to themselves via the concept of male, like toast topping preferences, risk aversion and so on like you say, lol.

So, I don’t think ‘male’ has a defined meaning in this sense. It could be more or less defined, and have different meanings for different people, and someone might not have done much of any real thinking about what it means to them.

Some people seem to have greater capacity for introspection than others, and I have noticed that some people do more introspection over time, and it can be thinking about what it really means for them over time that leads people to ‘detransition’ sometimes.

With some people I think you would be able to have a conversation with them about what they think, but how possible that would be and how much sense it would make would vary a lot depending on the person, how much thinking they’d done, and how open and articulate they were. Also, starting from stereotypes about what they might believe (wrong body, gender essences, gendered souls, pink and blue personalities etc) might well close down conversation before it started.

That’s my theory of what happens with some people. I don’t suppose it would cover everyone.

Hopefully that answers your question.

I don’t think any of the young teen girls I know actually identify as male. They identify as trans, or possibly as anime characters.

@Peasandsweetcorns I would genuinely be interested in your answer to this which I posted late last night - I know it sounds silly but I felt like I was getting somewhere in trying to make sense of what you were saying!

So, I’m using male in an abstract sense, just as an idea about yourself, and you didn’t know where it came from.

What does 'male' mean in this sense though? Someone who prefers marmalade to jam? Someone who is risk-averse? Someone with traits considered masculine in a particular time and place?

Why would you use a word that describes a specific type of bodies to describe an abstract sense? The only explanation is that you have also attached another meaning to it. But what?

Like I said, it's like saying you felt you were a person with a mole on their right hand.

Some of this reminds me of a phase in my life when I (politely) debated women's rights with two extremely conservative, extremely religious people online (one Christian right-winger, the other a Muslim, both believing that their holy book was the literal and unchanging truth about everything, even in translations).

The debate was impossible.

They didn't understand my reality at all and I didn't understand their reality which was based on one single book (and some extra hadits etc. in one case).

If you begin with one immovable starting point, i.e., that a (male) god has created everything for humans, has allowed one book (two) to be written about the rules of the game, and does not allow anything to be changed from this, then the only way to debate anything would be within what those books allow, in the most literal and narrow interpretation.

Those who believe in the gender identity concept (as the abstract, innermost feeling) are similar to these two religious people in that they will not debate anything that falls outside their doctrines, but will view those things as heresy, blasphemy etc.

And because in both cases there is no external evidence possible, the debates become rather similar non-debates, and at least in the gender identity case, name-calling as the replacement of debate.

I don't possess an innermost deep feeling about being feminine or masculine or neither or both, so I can't discuss the issues with a true believer, because a true believer tells me that I DO possess one, only I don't see it because I'm so content with the way women are treated and that exactly matches this hidden innermost feeling. I am so cis, in short.

Which pulls me into their framework again, just as the Abrahamic religions, in their most regressive forms, do.

a Swedish film about a man who had dreamed of childhood about being Swedish and got a chance to try to pass as a Swede.

Oops. A Finnish film about a Finn who had dreamed, etc. Managed to confuse myself into mangling the description.

But the point is that it's all just silly stereotypes.

Whatever you imagine Swedes to be, and you imagine Finns can't be, you can be that, without having to actually claim to be a Swede.

1

I used to watch Louder with Crowder all the time. Haven't for a couple of years, but twitter led me to this ... It's a year old.

Well yes, in that the idea of gender identity is simply morally wrong to me as a feminist who does not believe in these innate differences (other than evidenced sex differences) and who believes it's imperative that we dismantle these stereotypes.

But...there are women on these threads who do believe in innate differences other than reproductive differences, yet do not believe in gender identities. So I don't think what you say is entirely the case.

This is a bit random, but won't have a better chance to bring it up. Came across a Swedish film about a man who had dreamed of childhood about being Swedish and got a chance to try to pass as a Swede.

Trailer here, but no English subtitles. Had a go at transcripting, but my Finnish listening comprehension is rusty. You can try to read along.

> [SV] Anne-Louise!
> [FI] My name is Tiina. Helsinki. We are in Helsinki. Your name is Mikko, and I am Tiina. It stops now.
> [SV] The first time I was in Sweden, I knew I belonged here.
> [FI] Come on! Finland! Finland! Finland!
> [SV] Don't be so Swedish.
> [SV] No, no.
> [FI] [something], Mikko.
> [FI] Mikko, you are Finnish!
> [FI] Swede-homo.
> [SV] Mikko Virtanen. Involuntary Finn.
> [SV] Mikael Andersson, psychologist.
> [SV] I would give anything for your life.
> [SV] Take my life. I don't need it any more. You're welcome.
> [SV] Mikael!
> [SV] My name is Mikael Andersson! I am now Swedish.
> [SV] Who are you, Mikael?
> [SV] You can check my passport if you want.
> [SV] Who are you?
> [SV] Do I have a sister?
> [SV] Am I a believable Swedish man?
> [SV] A nationality transvestite.
> [SV] I'm not precisely that either.
> [FI] [something] Moomins in the valley
> [SV] What? I don't understand Finnish.
> [FI] Is that you, Mikko?
> [SV] Pardon?
> [FI] Dammit.
> [SV] Swedish intercourse is the finest that there is.
> [SV] Ooh! Feels really good!
> [SV] Two perfect people...
> [FI] How the hell did you imagine this would go?
> [FI] Idiot Swede.
> [FI] Thank you.

So yes, an hour and a half of nationality stereotypes (and trans) jokes.

@AnonnyMouseDave - “Obviously day to day you don't have people rubbing your noses in the fact you're not a true american, but if you wanted to run for president your true nationality would be the relevant thing... likewise I can imagine that a group of your friends having a deep chat about american attitudes and culture and what the true essence of the USA is might find it a little offensive if you thought your insight was as relevant as theirs.”

Exactly.

It's not possible to understand the concept of Gender Identity if you believe that all the observable differences between the sexes are the result of socialisation and conforming to sexist stereotypes.

Instead you need to believe, as I do, that there are some innate behavioural differences between the human sexes, just like there are for every other animal.

I literally don't care about (or for) all the word salad explanations. Gender Identity is based on outdated stereotypes of which sex does what/wears what/are legally allowed to do something.

Gender is hokey.

Given that we see nationality as a combination of things, not least language, accent, attitudes, habits etc, one might make the argument that even if you are "legally american" the reality is that you will never be 100% accepted as one because you're not - you're British! Obviously day to day you don't have people rubbing your noses in the fact you're not a true american, but if you wanted to run for president your true nationality would be the relevant thing... likewise I can imagine that a group of your friends having a deep chat about american attitudes and culture and what the true essence of the USA is might find it a little offensive if you thought your insight was as relevant as theirs.

I think @Peasandsweetcorns has a point. I am British but I've lived in the US since I was 52 and I now have American citizenship so I'm technically American. But my habits are British, my attitudes are British and I sound British. Any time I speak people immediately identify that I wasn't born and brought up here. Even if I wanted to I wouldn't "pass" as a natal American.

That might carry more weight, if we didn't know that every time a parent talks about their child being the opposite sex, they absolutely tie it to sexist stereotypes.

Jazz Jennings in America (star of a trans reality show), apparently wanted to be a girl from the age of three, because he wore tutus. Jazz is on their third genital operation I believe.

Jackie Green (the child of the head of mermaids), wanted to play with dolls, and after his parents removed them all, and said they were just for girls, he told his mum he must be a girl. She took him for genital surgery on his 16th birthday.

The Tavistock clinic have said that a massive marker for whether a youngster thinks they are the opposite sex, is that they are gay. And gender nonconforming. Not an inner knowledge, at all. A knowledge that they are acting contrary to society's expectations of people of their sex.

Boys can't wear tutus and play with dolls. Girls can't act masculine and fancy other girls.

It's sexist claptrap.

The tea drinking doesn't work. Tea drinking Brit is a stereotype. If a French person drank tea, it wouldn't make them British, no matter how much they wanted to be. Likewise if a British person hates tea, it doesn't mean they're not British.

(and as far as I know, both my examples, male individuals, are attracted to males - so it would be called gay in old money)

Hmm. Not sure your comparison works the way you intended. It suppose it does make a certain sense to compare one's awareness of (actually) being female or male with an awareness of one's national origin - neither of them you had any control over, unless you emigrate in later life and even then that won't undo your socialization.

However that doesn't work for cross-sex identification. So your comparison would be with somebody who was born and brought up in Britain, with a British passport and habits learned in childhood, but somehow has always felt they're really French because....? All you're left with is indeed stereotypes.

Others I've known would have given anything to be happy in the body they had, rather than feel the need to change - presumably they spent years and years in therapy trying to learn to accept their body?

In the case of the one person I knew who wanted to change sex (and has transitioned by taking testosterone), they were distressed by their experiences of being female (harrassment by males being one factor). Puberty plus harassment by males was probably the start middle and end. Not wanting to be sexually assaulted is reasonable. Doing whatever it takes to avoid it is reasonable. Expecting society to treat a woman as a man because she wants to pretend to be a man and make herself look like one to try to convince males not to assault her is not progressive and it is not gender dysphoria or anything close. It is a rational(ish) with deeply irrational aspects response to horrific events.

"In short, I don't think it's about wanting to be the opposite sex so much as believing one is, somehow, innately." How is it innate when it is triggered by harassment by males?

Some people I know believe in different male and female brains, which can somehow be on the wrong body... this theory is out of date. The latest theory is everyone has a gender goblin living in them, and sometimes the gender goblin is wrong sex. Sometimes, if your correct sex gender goblin is perfect enough, you don't even know you have one, hence why some people don't believe gender identities are a thing.

But if they don't believe it true then it is without meaning and utterly outrageous to expect people to go even 0.01% out of the way to go along with it.

So, I’m using male in an abstract sense, just as an idea about yourself, and you didn’t know where it came from.

What does 'male' mean in this sense though? Someone who prefers marmalade to jam? Someone who is risk-averse? Someone with traits considered masculine in a particular time and place?

Why would you use a word that describes a specific type of bodies to describe an abstract sense? The only explanation is that you have also attached another meaning to it. But what?

Like I said, it's like saying you felt you were a person with a mole on their right hand.

I’m trying to say I think it’s like if you were thinking exactly like you described that you do, and then you over time you realised you were also thinking you were male. And you didn’t know why. So, I’m using male in an abstract sense, just as an idea about yourself, and you didn’t know where it came from.

I've only known one trans person who wanted to be the opposite sex. Others I've known would have given anything to be happy in the body they had, rather than feel the need to change.

This makes me think it must be a deeply felt sense of being in the wrong body. I assume gender stereotypes are a big part of it too. In the case of the one person I knew who wanted to change sex (and has transitioned by taking testosterone), they were distressed by their experiences of being female (harrassment by males being one factor).

In short, I don't think it's about wanting to be the opposite sex so much as believing one is, somehow, innately. Which must be to do with gender stereotypes, unless it's due to a belief in imaginary essences. Some people I know believe in different male and female brains, which can somehow be on the wrong body...

It’s not necessarily a delusion since someone can have the thought without believing it’s true.

I don't understand this at all. I think I'm female because I can see my body is one of the type that is called female. Same way I know a book is a book.

Are you using "male" to actually mean male, as in having a male body, or do you mean a different thing?

No I think it’s just the thought ‘I’m male’ is present, and the reason for its presence is unknown by the person. So it’s not based consciously on anything. It must have arisen as a result of some combination of factors, but I think the person generally isn’t conscious of what the factors were.