Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Gender Identity - what is it?

147 replies

Wakame · 20/06/2018 16:07

Gender identity, simply put, is a person's innate sense of their own sex. Now, if you are one of the minority who either don't have, or are not aware of their gender identity, then this can be a difficult thing to understand. You're like a person who was born blind trying to understand what red looks like.

However, don't let that put you off - we can't see electrons either but we know they exist because they are suggested by science. So what science is there to suggest that gender identity exists? Well here's one for you:

There is a birth deformity called "cloacal exstrophy" which involves severe malformations of the lower abdomen. In the past boys born with this condition were often given a "sex change" shortly after birth and were raised as girls with no knowledge of their male past. Despite this, a large percentage go on to express a male gender identity.

That innate knowledge of their own sex is gender identity.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421517/

One thought experiment you could try is to imagine what it would be like if an ingenious neurologist transplanted your brain into a man's body. Would you now feel like a man, or would you feel like a woman inside a man's body? There's no right or wrong answer and if you are genuinely "agender" (without a gender identity) then the experiment is not going to tell you anything. However, for some people, it's an experiment through which they start to understand.

It's a thought experiment so it's not about current medical science, however, the boys with cloacal exstrophy kind of did have their brains transplanted into apparently female bodies, so it's a good analogy. And as you can see, many of them felt like boys in female bodies.

Most of you will of course, dismiss this. That's OK - doctors and scientists don't doubt the existence of gender identity, and you'll make little progress until you acknowledge it.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
speakingwoman · 22/06/2018 13:34

Too much music on the board right now but has anyone else felt the urge to sing

"Waka.... waka ..... wakame
Waka..... waka.......wakame

to Coldplay's Paradise?

Kettlepotblackagain · 22/06/2018 13:40

a lot of the comments are fairly horrible - both to me personally, and to trans people in general. I am trans and I work with trans women so I know the level of suffering involved and spending too much time here does have a consequence for my mental health. So I dip in when I feel up to it.

Wakame - any thought to what discussing this has done to others mental health?

Any thought about the 'horrible' comments made by Trans people? How that makes others feel?

Any thought to how it must have felt attending a meeting threatened by a bomb?

Any thoughts about the potential consequences to women and girls if someone predatory takes advantage of self-id?

SPOFS · 22/06/2018 14:14

@wakame Can you please Point out the horrible personal comments? I will help you report them.

OldCrone · 22/06/2018 14:15

Wakame

I'll accept at face value your assertion that 'gender identity' exists, even though I have no understanding of what it is other than some aspect of personality.

I have a couple of questions for you.

Why is it so important to you that the world validates your gender identity over and above your biological sex?

I understand why you might want to change your appearance, your name and so on to make you feel more comfortable within yourself, but why do you feel it is necessary to remove the safeguarding in place to protect women and girls in order for you to be validated as who you feel you are?

KataraJean · 22/06/2018 22:32

If gender identity exists and is innate, therefore only the person who has that gender identity can know and express it, how on Earth do you come to the conclusion that most GC people are agender? Isn’t that up to them to say?!?

That apart, i am not convinced I am conflating gender roles and gender identity. But I don’t see how you can have an identity that is not somehow referential to external markers.

Voice0fReason · 22/06/2018 22:47

Trans people tend to prioritise the mind over the genitals when determining someone's sex
Which makes them wrong.
Sex is a biological fact for all but a tiny number of intersex people.
Women can get pregnant. Men can make women pregnant. The mind isn't relevant to that.

I haven't seen any nasty comments on this thread. I have absolutely no issue with men expressing themselves however they feel comfortable. If they feel comfortable presenting themselves in a stereotypically female way they should feel safe and confident to do that. The more they do, the more normal it will become. However, I cannot accept that their belief that they have a female brain, should entitle them to being treated as female including having access to female only spaces. Whatever is going on in their brain, the body is male.

Kettlepotblackagain · 22/06/2018 23:19

but why do you feel it is necessary to remove the safeguarding in place to protect women and girls in order for you to be validated as who you feel you are?

I'd love to know the answer to this too

BeUpStanding · 22/06/2018 23:48

@BettyDuMonde
You're ruddy marvellous! Loving your contributions to FWR Grin

Bloodmagic · 23/06/2018 03:59

@Hi @wakame

Thanks for your reply.

I wrote a second post after my first one but the internet ate it so I will start with that before I go on with responding to your points.

Even if we go with your assertion that gender identity is a real scientific phenomenon with a physical basis, we can’t currently measure it. There is no scan we can perform to determine someone’s gender identity, or even any questionnaire or objective diagnostic criteria. If you have access to a diagnostic criteria for how to tell which gender identity a person has (for example, if we assume that everyone has a gender identity, how can I tell if mine if female, male, both, neither, semi, or fluid?) please share it so I can find out which one I have. So even if gender identity in general were a scientific phenomenon in general, in the individual it’s still a subjective belief. It isn’t able to be tested, which makes it a religious or supernatural idea.

In addition, if we did invent an objective test, what would that mean for people who didn’t pass it? We have an objective test for other conditions, eg diabetes, altzheimers. If you feel sick and think you might have diabetes you go get the test done. If the test is positive we know what that means and how to treat it, but if the test is negative we know something else is going on. If you are asserting that gender identity is based in reality and is a scientific notion then it must be hypothetically testable (given enough data and advanced enough technolofy). So for example let’s say we scientifically determine the exact brain structure responsible for gender identity and find that for the vast majority of ‘genuine trans people’ (excluding those who desist or detransition) they do have the ‘brain sex’ of their preferred gender. However, they objectively prove that you, as an individual, don’t. Your test is negative. This would mean that you aren’t really transgender, you have some other condition causing you to feel certain symptoms, correct? Would this mean you shouldn't be entitled to the same rights and protections as genuine transpeople, eg. in regard to bathrooms? Or would personal belief supersede the objective test?

That’s the thing about science, once you make it a testable hypothesis you have to accept the outcome either way.

And since we don’t currently have that technology and we do know that some people desist and detransition (come to believe that they in fact are not transgender and never were), it is likely that even if it were proven that some people are neurologically transgender, many people who BELIEVE they are neurologically transgender in fact aren’t.

Do you agree with this?

Bloodmagic · 23/06/2018 05:20

Hi @wakame

A point by point response follows, it’s very long.

When I said you provided a fine definition of gender identity, I should have put more emphasis on the “A”. It’s not the only one that’s been proposed and it doesn’t cover all the current uses of the term. We can go ahead and run with it but you’ll have to try and convince the rest of the transgender community to use it.

“ many people on Mumsnet who state that gender identity doesn't exist,”
Well, that’s a difficult question. If something exists only in the mind as a subjective experience, does it really ‘exist’? Do imaginary friends exist? Does your internal subvocalisation ‘exist’? It’s a subjective experience that is genuine for the person experiencing it but doesn’t take part in our shared reality.
It is also for all those people who confuse gender identity with gender roles.

This is not a problem with mumsnet, this is throughout transgender ideology. I’ve never read a single narrative about transition that didn’t include things like ‘I always play with dolls and never wanted to play rugby with the boys’. This is why I say that while your definition of gender identity is fine, you’re going to have to try and get the rest of the transgender community to use it too.

^” We already know that it is possible to have a gender identity that doesn't match the sex you were assigned at birth given the fact that trans people exist. The question is not "if" it happens, but "how" it happens.”

You’re going to have to refine your definition then. You asserted that gender identity is “a person's innate sense of their own sex”. Would you like to change it to; “A persons innate sense of having a sex which may or may not be related to their actual sex.” ?

I feel like I need to take a digression so we can agree on definition of sex, female, etc. Because you say that you were always female and you transitioned and that trans people prioritise the sex of the mind over the body (if I’m not misinterpreting that?)

These are straight dictionary definitions:
sex: either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
Male: of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

As you mentioned people with CAIS let’s just briefly cover reproductive development so we know we’re all working from a common understanding. In utero all foetuses begin with undifferentiated gonads. If that foetus has a Y chromosome those gonads differentiate into testes, which may potentially produce sperm. All foetuses with a Y chromosome (or specifically the SRY gene on that chromosome, as in XXmale) are male.
In foetuses without an SRY gene those gonads differentiate into ovaries which may go on to produce ovum. These are all female. Sexual development after that point can get very complicated but up to the differentiation of male and female it is very simple.

The sexes exist for the exclusive purpose of sexual reproduction, so it’s nonsensical to discuss them outside of that context. The sexes are divided by their potential role in reproduction, whether or not the individual actually participates in it or is capable of participating in it. The root of sexual differentiation is the presence or absence of the SRY gene, which is a binary characteristic. All people who have the SRY gene are potentially sperm producers (and are never ovum producers) and all who don’t have it are potentially ovum producers (never sperm producers). There are any number of medical conditions or choices that result in not actually reproducing, but that doesn’t change a persons sex.

I understand that you may use these words in different ways to refer to yourself and your experience but for the purpose of this discussion let’s keep things in the common accepted definitions. Sex is defined by chromosomal reproductive role, not by the mind. Females have no Y chromosome or SRY gene, and unless they have a medical condition they go on to experience menarche and ovulation, among many other things.

People with CAIS have testes and sometimes produce sperm, they are males with an intersex condition that causes them to develop some physical structures similar to what is expected in females.

I assume we have a common understanding here of the definitions of sex, male, female, and the basic process of sexual development? If not please explain where you disagree or don’t understand.

People don’t change sex, and transwomen are male, but transwomen may change their sexual characteristics to resemble the sex of their gender identity (using your definition of gender identity).

What were they perceiving? Their liver function?

Potentially. We’re just now learning about how male and female bodies function differently (historically women were just assumed to be smaller malformed men). There’s also pheromones, which again we’re just not beginning to appreciate all the ways they subtly affect our perceptions. I’m pointing out that you’ve assumed a fixed gender identity, when it’s equally explained by continuing to accurately perceive sex. Even if they didn’t perceive that they were male, they likely would have been able to perceive that they were NOT female, due to the fluctuations and development that other young girls experience.

The boys gender identity was immutable as is the gender identity of trans people.

You have to accept that you’re really biased in this. You’re not looking at a study of these boys and wondering ‘what could cause them to recognise their won sex?’ you’re looking at the study and thinking ‘does this reinforce what I already believe about gender identity?’ Pretty much everyone does that, but we all ned to work on recognising it. The outcomes in this study could be the result of either a gyroscope-like gender identity which is an innate perception of a body sex that may or may not be accurate, or by continuing to accurately perceive the actual sex of one’s own body the majority of the time. We don’t know which it is, and whether or not it’s related to transgenderism.

“You are mistaking gender identity for an ability to perceive the sex of your body rather than an ability to perceive the sex of your core identity”

Sorry, you’ve changed your definition here. We went from “innate sense of a sex” to “ability to perceive the sex of your core identity” which is very different. Or I have misinterpreted you before. I was understanding that your definition is about an innate sense of sex, defined as having a male or female body with (in this case) the typical sexual characteristics. I thought you meant it as a sort of proprioception. We know that people have in internal ‘map’ or their own body. For example phantom limb syndrome is caused by a disconnection between the brains ‘map’ and the actual physical body. Is that what you meant? That would indicate that transgenderism is always linked to some level of dysphoria or disconnection between the sex of the brain map and the actual sex of the body. Is that what you meant? Identities and personalities do not have a sex, bodies do. It is hypothetically possible to have an innate sense that you sex SHOULD be other than what it is (like the sense that you SHOULD still have a left arm), but that doesn’t mean that you have an internal sex, and more than you can have internal limbs. Can you please clarify?

On genderfluid: “I suspect that if your gender identity is balanced in the centre, it's quite easy for your perception of it to fall either side from time to time.”

But that completely undermines the idea that gender identity is ‘innate’. If it can shift from time to time.

It's only a shame that so many of the agender people here have made the leap from "I have no gender identity" to "Therefore no-one has a gender identity".

Hang on, hang on, so you’re saying that some people don’t have a gender identity at all? So your definition should be that gender identity is “A sense experienced by some people of having a sex which may or may not be related to their actual sex.” It can’t be innate or common if many people don’t have it or if it changes over time, it’s just a sense that some people have and some people don’t. If you think about it, you’re getting really close to my definition of gender identity here.

“a belief in the specific sex of ones own mind.”

Because I put it to you that it is the belief in being transgender that makes a person transgender. If a person has those genetic abnormalities you listed but does not believe that they have the ‘brain sex’ of the opposite sex, they aren’t transgender. If they do not have those abnormalities but do believe they have the ‘brainsex’ of the opposite sex, they are transgender.

So my definition is
“a belief in the specific sex of ones own mind.”
And I believe the best explanation of yours is
“A sense experienced by some people of having a sex which may or may not be related to their actual sex.”

The main difference is that my definition includes non-dysphoric trans people and yours doesn't. I'd be fine with either one.

Bloodmagic · 23/06/2018 05:25

To summarise:

If you are arguing that some people who identify as transgender are born with a specific, physically based neurological condition which causes an error in their proprioception, which in turn causes them to sense that their body should have the physical characteristics of the opposite sex, you won’t find much disagreement here. Of course that’s possible. I actually think it’s actually quite likely. We would also have to accept then that transgenderism is a medical condition. We could even call the proprioception of sex in general ‘gender identity’ if you like.
But then, if it’s a testable hypothesis, people who do not claim body dysphoria, or whose gender identity is strongly linked to feminine behavior and aesthetics rather than body sex, or who in the future are found to not have the specific abnormalities which cause mismatched gender identity, those people are NOT transgender.

You also have to accept that from the outside there is no discernible difference between someone who has a specific gender identity and a person who doesn’t. There’s no currently observable difference between a pre-transition transwoman and a man, even if we expect there may be one in the future.

And finally, whatever gender identity is, it isn’t sex. People who are born male but feel they have the gender identity of a female, are still male. Even after surgical or hormonal alteration, they are still male. This is important because sometimes we segregate things by sex or record sex for very good reasons and that needs to be maintained. Gender identity does not supersede sex, it is an additional characteristic. Males with a female gender identity are a subset of males, not a subset of females.

Bloodmagic · 23/06/2018 05:28

One final question; how do you account for detransitioners? They must have been incorrect about their gender identity at least once. The sense of gender identity is definitely not infallible. What does that mean for your definition?

OldCrone · 23/06/2018 07:08

Bloodmagic
This is why they deny that detransitioners exist. They say that they weren't really trans to start with. But that means they were mistaken, so self-diagnosis is not infallible. When you use logic to unpick an illogical argument, it falls to bits.

heresyandwitchcraft · 25/06/2018 01:37

@Bloodmagic
Your response was incredibly thoughtful, well articulated and exemplified what I love about this forum. Thank you.

Snappity · 25/06/2018 04:03

But then, if it’s a testable hypothesis, people who do not claim body dysphoria, or whose gender identity is strongly linked to feminine behavior and aesthetics rather than body sex, or who in the future are found to not have the specific abnormalities which cause mismatched gender identity, those people are NOT transgender.

This is the nub of your long post, I think. You are mixing things up. The studies have shown that trans women have brains with female characteristics. I am unaware of any substantial studies on trans men and absolutely nothing on the rest of the trans umbrella.

So actually the testable hypothesis would be that trans women or transsexuals in general have a female brain but there would be no testable hypothesis for transgenderism in general.

Bowlofbabelfish · 25/06/2018 06:32

The studies have shown that trans women have brains with female characteristics.

That is incorrect.

A good thread about what those MRI scan studies do show and don’t show is here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3196135-Scientists-please-gather-round

Baroquehavoc · 25/06/2018 06:42

There was a whole bbc programme dedicated to the differences between female and male brains. The conclusion was that no-one can tell someone's sex by looking at their brain.

VovoBickie · 25/06/2018 06:52

Haven't all the brain scan studies failed to find an absolute difference between female and male brains? "Female characteristics" are not only found in females, I mean, so therefore aren't a way to categorise males and females. Just as you wouldn't categorise by height characteristics... E.g. Females are mostly shorter than males but that doesn't mean short males are females.

Does that make sense?

Voice0fReason · 25/06/2018 22:47

The studies have shown that trans women have brains with female characteristics.
What exactly are these female characteristics that can be seen in women's brains?

Imchlibob · 26/06/2018 04:52

I'm no brain scientist but my lay-understanding is this:

Even if there are measurable characteristics which are more prevalent in females than males, the existance of such a characteristic in a male who identifies as a woman does not prove anything without two further facts being established:

Firstly you would need to study the general population of males who identify as males, somehow have a satisfactory test to establish beyond reasonable doubt that they aren't actually "trans but in the closet" that is independent of such brain scans ( I don't think that would be possible) and then establish that the probability of a non-trans male brain having this characteristic is overwhelmingly less than the probability of a trans male having it. You would also need to account for any women, identifying as women, who don't have this characteristic.

The effect of brain plasticity also needs to be accounted for - it has been established that brains are very plastic - that is, they adapt to the use to which they are put. If you take a characteristic that has gender-expectations linked to it - eg 3d spacial awareness and perception - a child or adult of either sex that regularly spends time on activities that require this characteristic will develop a stronger ability in this area. Equally if it is never used or challenged then it can reduce. Given that we know that girls and boys on average are treated differently from birth it would be virtually impossible to prove that any given difference is down to inherent masculinity or femininity rather than brain plasticity.

In any case my understanding is that for most brain characteristics the vast majority of the population both male and female occupy a zone of the spectrum that overlaps for men and women such that you wouldn't be able to guess better than randomly whether a particular measurement related to a man or a woman, but for characteristics that are being talked of as "male" or "female" this is just because the 10% of outliers at the extreme ends of these spectra are significantly more likely to be male or female. This puts such measurements it the same category as measurements of height, speed or strength - yes the very tallest, fastest and strongest examples of our species tend to be male. That doesn't imply that that the tallest, fastest and strongest women are in fact men. The same logic would apply to any measurable brain characteristic that was proven to be more strongly detectable in men than women.

Pratchet · 26/06/2018 05:02

The studies that supposedly prove that transgender people have an 'opposite sex' brain actually disprove the theories about being 'born in the wrong body'. They clearly demonstrate that there are no unique male or female brain traits, and that the brains of both sexes share traits. This is so obvious, it's amazing the claim that they demonstrate what they actually disprove has such traction.

why do you feel it is necessary to remove the safeguarding in place to protect women and girls in order for you to be validated as who you feel you are?

Response needed. Please don't dodge this question.

ballsballsballs · 26/06/2018 07:13

I'd be interested to hear the answer to Pratchet's question.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread