Could you get on board with this definition of gender identity?

[SarahCarer]

If sex = biologically male or female and
Gender = the sex based role society expects us to perform
Gender identity = instinctive complicit performance of a sex based role

Not everyone complies instinctively to any sex based role
Not everyone complies instinctively to the role normally imposed on their own sex
Feminism enlightens us and we can overcome our complicity, and resist.

I don't like instinctive either. I can of see what you mean. The potential to learn a language is programmed but the actual language is a result of social , culture. The problem is I don't see gender operating on this level. It is entirely cultural. I don't see any instinct to latch on to this particular aspect of a culture. It is sex that conditions, pushes into roles. I just don't see the need or evidence for a gender identity.

How are you adding anything by stating that learning through imitation is instinctive?

By applying it to gender identity you’re giving the impression that it is some kind of special case, and more instinctive that any other form of copying.

*The definition of gender identity isn't relevant to the definition of sex and the legal and cultural primary importance of biological sex." Well true. But the reason the belief in an innate gender identity is one of the twin threats to the above is because the idea resonates with a great many people and not just trans people. I think that decrying it as non existent or religious belief doesn't get us nearly as far as seeking to explain the experience.

Nobody ever wants to explain the experience though. Been waiting about ten years on these boards for a description of these internal feelings...

How are you adding anything by stating that learning through imitation is instinctive? It explains why people some people experience conditioning without any sense of internal conflict. It explains why it feels natural to many people and importantly it explains why someone can internalise the other role to the one society expects them to perform. It emphasises the role of the individual in the process without denying the fact that gender is externally imposed and culturally relative.

@Jamieandwordswo I have explained the experience here before. I have experienced gender identity. I agree trans people often don't want to explain the experience because you cannot do so without using stereotypes. But if you allow yourself to use stereotypes the experience can quite easily be explained.

There’s no personal judgement in ‘very misleading’. It’s my assessment of your proposed definition - not my opinion of you

If you don’t believe gender identity is innate, then I’d avoid a definition stating “gender identity = instinctive anything”, as it could easily translates as “gender identity = innate”.

I agree complicit is very loaded and initially countered that term as well - because I think you mean compliant, not complicit - but then decided to keep posts simple. Now you’ve bought it up, ‘complicit’ means ‘involved with others in an activity that is unlawful or morally wrong‘. I’m sure you didn’t mean that - that would probably be actually transphobic, rather than gender critical! (Although this could be an interesting tangential discussion.... is complicity with gendered stereotypes immoral as it perpetuates patriarchy, discuss)

‘Compliant’ means ‘disposed to agree with others or obey rules, especially to an excessive degree; acquiescent’ - but even when using the intended term here, I think ‘compliant’ is loaded, as it feels as if it implies a conscious choice is made to comply with stereotypes, and I’m not sure there is.

I don't think I can get on board with that. Or I don't understand it. I don't know where the lines would be and I might end up being considered a man if my instinctive performance is not womanly enough. I'm not a man. Because the gender identity as defined still relies on the gender which is ascribed by societal expectations as its base? If I instinctively reject "womanly" things does that make me a man?

Surely it all just biology and personality interacting really? With a big dump of socialization on top. I just can't get my head round gender as a thing at all if I'm honest.

Yy fair point but you are still left with 'woman is a feeling in a man's head' - however you describe the feeling

Trans people can’t experience gender identity, by your definition, OP.

Your explanation of gender identity requires you feel male and be male, or feel female and be female.

Also, your definition doesn’t mention instinctive learning. It mentions instinctive performance.

But that veers very close to suggesting that males who transition experience in childhood, as they claim, female socialization, and I refuse to believe that, because the external world doesn't regard them as female I would say that some trans women make it very clear that they have not experienced female socialisation. Some parody female behaviours. But some trans women and also some gay men do seem to exhibit traits consistent with female socialisation and i would say that whilst society didn't impose that on them when they were young they may have imposed it on themselves yes.
I apologise for the use of the word complicit. But I don't mean compliant. I think perhaps I mean "co-operate"

Which is fine, as long as the feeling remains in the man's head
Exactly. This.

Quick rider

The definition of woman must remain based in biology
It is oppressive to women to redefine womanhood as femininity

I chatted to an excuse me a fortnight or so ago. He was a bit fey and softly spoken but otherwise completely male in an 'I know best' sort of way. I'm astonished he thinks he is female.

It is oppressive to women to redefine womanhood as femininity

This is a superbly succinct way to explain it to people.

If identity is nothing but performance, how is it identity? Identity is internal.

Ah, is it?

Dictionary googling again! I think relavent definition of ‘identity’ here is ‘the fact of being who or what a person or thing is; the characteristics determining who or what a person or thing is’.

Facts and characteristics - those are not internal things. I’d counter that in this context - discussing ‘gender identity’ - it is less about some indescribable internal sense of self, and more about how the individual wishes to be perceived and treated by others; hence adopting/forging traits and characteristics in order to invite that perception/treatment - based on what that individual has learned about societal interactions, in this context based on stereotypes sex-roles. Hence, identity can be described as performance, because it involves the display of this conditioned (learned) behaviour.

I hope that all makes sense

It is also oppressive to women to try and claim that femininity can be decoupled from the female body.

Femininity is societal rules about the treatment and perception of female bodied people.

Trans people can’t experience gender identity, by your definition, OP.

Your explanation of gender identity requires you feel male and be male, or feel female and be female.

Also, your definition doesn’t mention instinctive learning. It mentions instinctive performance.

No I said it was the complicity that was instinctive not the performance itself although that follows.

At the point at which boys and girls first begin to experience constant sex based categorisation they are not confronted nearly as often with the physical differences as they are with the cultural differences. They see differences in clothes and hair far more often than differences in bodies. So it is entirely feasible at this very early developmental stage that a child could begin to co-operate with the role imposed on the other sex based category. Because children are not only being treated a certain way. They are also watching how others are treated and what is expected of others.

Young children are far more exposed to pregnant women and nudity far more than any other age group. They know mummies have babies and daddies do not.

‘Instinctive complicity’ is absolutely meaningless without either performance of copying added.

Gender is totally an artificial social construct. You can see that from the way it varies around the world and through history. In some societies men wear sarongs instead of trousers and decorate their skin with tribal markings, among the Masai it’s the women who cut their hair short and the men who grow it long, in 18th century Britain, it was the men who wore gaudy colourful clothes and fancy wigs, in Asia maths and science are not seen as mainly subjects for boys, etc.
The only constant everywhere is biological, genital and chromosomal sex, not gender. A transgender person can certainly feel uncomfortable with the gender stereotype of their particular society, but they can have no idea how it “feels” to be the opposite sex as they lack any of that sex’s attributes. Surely we should be working to get rid of gender stereotypes altogether for everybody, not just trans people? So that a gender dysphoric man can simply be comfortable to be a man who likes dresses or make up- he doesn’t need to claim that it somehow makes him a woman?

But I don't mean compliant. I think perhaps I mean "co-operate"

Sorry I can’t make sense of that. Complicit and compliant are both adjectives and obviously easily confused - cooperate is a verb - even if you mean cooperative (adjective), that means working together towards a mutual goal. Surely it was compliant (as in, compliant with stereotyped sex-based role) you were after? That makes logical sense...