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.

Goes both ways I think Bowl. I've seen transmen enough times referred to on here as being nothing more unusual than gender-non-conforming women; which effectively denies the possibility of their having a "gender identity". To which I'm sure many (on Twitter, no doubt), say "fuck off".

I’m sure they would, and I’d probably agree with them on that. They have the fuck off veto too.

Transmen do seem rather invisible in this whole thing don’t they?

Rat

I fail to see how a social scripting not scripted to you can possibly impact on your identity.

Your racial scripting is biological. The way people expect you to behave due to that biology is your racial scripting. For a male to say his ‘gender identity’ is that of a female, he is stating that his social scripting has formed his identity as a woman. When actually a mans social scripting has never been that of a woman.

If a mans social scripting has formed part of his identity that he feels closesly aligns with gender norms of females, it ceases to be gender as the second it stops being about the sex class, it stops being gender

Transmen do seem rather invisible in this whole thing don’t they?

I'm not entirely surprised. Not least because it inflames the patriarchy far less that a woman might be seen to ape a man, than when a man could be perceived as aping a woman.

Transmen do seem rather invisible in this whole thing don’t they?

Not totally. This quote: "Gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender" comes directly from the Yogyakarta Principles.
Transman Stephen Whittle was one of the people responsible for the Yogyakarta Principles and is certainly a major player at the more intellectual end of transactivism.

I don’t think anyone can deny that social scripting affects your identity.

It most certainly does, but gender is the social roles and practises enforced due to sex class, therefore it cannot affect the identity of a person of the opposite sec class, if it does, it ceases (by definition) to be gender.

Stephen Whittle did briefly post on here on the back of a pretty prolific thread, Am I alone in wondering where all the WOMEN wanting to trans are .

I'm only linking it because it was one of my all time favourite discussions on the subject here. For the most part it was a really good-natured an informative chat!

old crone

Experience of gender is not individual, that’s the very point of it

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 where do you think transgender people fit into this, Rat? Man takes woman home, only to find, when they get intimate, that the 'woman' has a penis. Your argument seems to be that people should use stereotypical modes of appearance to make sure people know what sex they are. In which case, the transwoman should try to look as male as possible so as not to confuse the men.

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

Yes. But children who are confused about all the gender nonsense being thrown at them do not need to be medicated. And any child who goes doesn't go through puberty will never have a healthy functioning outcome in terms of sex.

Your argument seems to be that people should use stereotypical modes of appearance to make sure people know what sex they are.

There's no "should" about my argument; I'm just commenting on what we objectively observe of human behaviour. We observe "signalling", particularly in relation to sexually-motivated scenarios. People also find ways to display their homo or heterosexualities, because it's important sometimes that people know who you want to sleep with as well as them wanting to sleep with you.

I think transpeople have it hard negotiating sex and relationships regardless OldCrone. They aren't suddenly going to be able to set aside their trans-ness just to make it easier to get laid; they're simply trying to get laid on top of being trans. If only it were so simple they would never be trans in the first place, I'm sure!

And any child who goes doesn't go through puberty will never have a healthy functioning outcome in terms of sex.

It's rather up to them and their doctors to decide if it is this healthiest outcome possible for them given the symptoms they're presenting with, don't you think? Not all of us are lucky enough in what we face in life to be able to come out of it with no harm done at all.

I'm just commenting on what we objectively observe of human behaviour.

But if you choose to do something which aligns with or goes against the stereotype for your sex, it is a choice. Anyone can choose to do things typical for their own sex or the opposite sex. But if you're doing things typical of the opposite sex that just means you're going against stereotypes. It's not a 'gender identity'

Rat

No. No it is not up to a doctor to sterilise a child and remove any ability for them to have a functioning and fulfilling sex life based on an arbituary idea of ‘gender identity’ that no one can quantify.

Humans have a RIGHT to experience sexual experience be it alone or with company. No doctor has a right to create a enuch

It is may be possible to have an identity shaped by the gender norms enforced upon you. It is not possible to have an identity shaped by gender norms not enforced upon you. At this stage the term ‘gender’ becomes obsolete.

From what I’ve read here ‘gender identity’
Means the opposite of that which it’s bandied around as.
‘Gender identity’ means ‘not’ conforming to scripted gender norms rather than having anything to do with becoming the opppsife sex.

I feel like I'm not getting my point across here OldCrone, but it might just be that someone who has no concept of gender identity themself cannot conceive of it. I want to stress that is in no way meant as a diss, simply that it is a real possibility! It would certainly explain the lack of compromise in so many areas of the debate.

Anyway, what I'm saying is it is not the "going with" or "going against" the stereotypes that is the notion of "gender identity". It's the knowing which set of stereotypes applies to you.

I'm really struggling to think of a clearer way to put that, because I'm sure I've said it a few times now and I'm still not sure it's being understood. Of course I don't mind it being refuted, I'm just not entirely sure it's resonating with some people in the first place! And that's okay, just it really does highlight the existential divide between the two sides.

Rat

If stereotypes that have not been scripted to you due to sex class resonate with you, they are not gender.

Gender has a very clear meaning

Unless you change the definition of gender and/or identity, you simply cannot ascribe the two things to a person simultaneously

In terms of medical ethics the medicalizing of gender non conforming children and teens is an affront. I have predicted for years that the law suits coming when kids grow up to discover that they're sterile and have little or no sexual function will be a firestorm.

Those who promote this will find themselves disgraced, if not legally culpable, depending on the role they have taken in this monstrous practice

Yes the lack of any sexual function (see Jazz Jennings having to ask friends what an orgasm feels like and knowing they’ll never experience one due to chemical then physical castrations) plus the issues with Lupron, muscle atrophy, endlsss debilitation pain.

It’s bad news

Good thread!

OldCrone
"But if you choose to do something which aligns with or goes against the stereotype for your sex, it is a choice. Anyone can choose to do things typical for their own sex or the opposite sex. But if you're doing things typical of the opposite sex that just means you're going against stereotypes. It's not a 'gender identity'"

By that definition, wouldn't homosexuality also be a 'choice'?

Rat just wanted to tell you that I get what you are saying and I agree with you

I am also deeply wary of the promotion of trans identities and gender identity to young children. And I am aware of the alleged paralells between that sentiment and section 28, but it's not the same thing. The potential for physical and psychological harm to children 'affirmed' in trans-ness is massive. And I worry about the conflation of physical (dimorphic) sex and gender identity. They aren't the same thing.

Those who promote this will find themselves disgraced, if not legally culpable, depending on the role they have taken in this monstrous practice

Surely very few people promote medical treatment? Surely most people are either doctors who think its in their patients best interests, patients who liaise with their doctors, and others who defers to the better-placement of the two former-mentioned to make the decision?

I think anyone actually promoting it beyond the necessary is almost certainly monstrous, but mostly I think it's just normal people doing the best they can either for themselves, their loved ones, or those they are responsible for in a professional capacity.

Rat just wanted to tell you that I get what you are saying and I agree with you

flowers you make me so happy!

By that definition, wouldn't homosexuality also be a 'choice'?

Why? What has homosexuality got to do with stereotypes? Homosexuality is about attraction.

OldCrone

Well, for a long time in this society and still in many societies, same sex attraction was/is considered 'abnormal' with the socially imposed stereotype being attraction to the opposite sex.