Gender Identity is an oxymoron

[CantankerousCamel]

Maybe someone here can explain this to me.

Gender is the name given to the social roles and practises enforced due to sex class

That’s what the word has always meant, it was first coined by some dude called John in the middle of the last century and has always meant this.

Identity is an innate sense of self, personality if you will.

So the two cannot go together, you cannot adjust the social scripting enforced due to your sex class with personality, that’s why it’s enforced. Otherwise it’s not gender.

Obviously feminism has always promoted identity over gender, because how we see ourselves and how we project ourselves should be more important than how society scripts us due to sex class, but that is abolition of gender.

I don’t understand the term ‘gender identity’ I don’t understand why, when people use it, they’re unable to give this alternative definition of either gender or identity that makes those words go together.

An arbitrary understanding of sociology shows that the words are opposite. One is how you see yourself, the other how society scripts you.

I believe Gender Identity is double speak, like Male woman or girl penis.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

and so know that neck extender's are supposed to

Terrible apostrophe misuse there.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

Doctors medicate people for medical reasons, such as facilitating them to a healthy functioning outcome, don't they?

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.

Have you noticed how in situation where sex, like coupling up, getting it on sex, is a key consideration, people are far more quickly and easily identifiable as one sex or the other?

So if a man and a woman go to visit a building site, at a glance from a distance you might not really spot the difference all that quickly. Both in hardhat, both in clunky boots and practical clothing; you'd probably make a determination based on size of frame and posture... you might get closer and realise you were wrong and it's actually a small-framed man and a 6ft woman. But signalling their sex in that context is less important than the practicality and safety of their presentation.

Now stick the same man and woman out on the pull in a nightclub on a Friday night. I reckon you could, at a glance, make a fair determination that the 6ft person in the mini skirt with long hair and curvy figure (all for example) is a woman and the guy in the checked shirt and jeans was a man. They are likely to deliberately exaggerate their allegiance to a particular sex class when being sexually attractive is more important than being practical on a building site.

You may not need stereotypes to tell the difference, but we like to make it easy when we want to get laid. Just like we want to know quickly and easily if we're surrounded by a bunch of Ipswich football supporters when you're a Norwich City fan. It serves a social purpose to be able to recognise quickly and easily when we share or do not share certain things with those around us, when it is important in the context.

"Gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender"

This is what stonewall had as well.

Who has been asked?

The definition comes about as a way for trans people to explain their experience. By definition, they have a strongly held internal sense of gender ID.

The weird bit is that this is then extrapolated to say that everyone has a strongly held internal sense of gender ID.

What population has this been checked against? On MN most women don't have this feeling (and it's not because they don't know their own minds, thanks for the suggestion from certain quarters). Maybe men feel this feeling more than women? Who knows?

I've always felt like a person, it was jarring and annoying and uncomfortable when I'd be going around feeling like a person and someone would do or say something to point out I was a girl. This is why I knew I was a feminist from a young age, and it's why many girls & women come to feminism. And it's why all this stuff is so utterly baffling. Now you TELL ME I am cis, after all this, you tell me who I am, you seek to define me, and when I say no, that's not me, you say, Yes it is, you are just too comfortable in your own skin to realise.

To which the only response is, fuck off, isn't it?

The definition comes about as a way for trans people to explain their experience. By definition, they have a strongly held internal sense of gender ID.

The weird bit is that this is then extrapolated to say that everyone has a strongly held internal sense of gender ID.

I completely agree with both of these statements. And yes, "fuck off" is a completely acceptable response to being told how you feel about yourself - from both sides of the argument!

I think "cis" would be better to mean no sense of gender identity - only an awareness of one's sex, with which one feels reconciled, or having a sense of gender identity which is in line with one's biological sex.

Because as you rightly say, lots of people to whom the word is applied do not have a sense of gender identity.

Not saying I think it's important to use the word cis; I've never needed to use it. But it might be less offensive if it meant that.

Well exactly sardine

I respect that those who hold a faith believe in a soul, and the tenets of their religion. I don’t, they do, that’s fine. And I will happily uphold their right to hold that religion within the framework of the law.

But as soon as I’m told I must also believe that, it’s fuck off time.