What constitutes your identity?

[Z0rr0]

The dictionary definition is 'the fact of being who or what a person or thing is'.
To expand: The definition of identity is who you are, the way you think about yourself, the way you are viewed by the world and the characteristics that define you.
[In maths an identity is 'a transformation that leaves an object unchanged'.]
Wikipedia says: Identity is the qualities, beliefs, personality, looks and/or expressions that make a person or group. One can regard the categorizing of identity as positive or as destructive. A psychological identity relates to self-image, self-esteem, and individuality.

I'm asking this because both Radcliffe and Redmayne have talked about JKR's comments 'invalidating trans identities' or having their 'identities questioned'.
Someone on here said something I thought was brilliant the other day:
Many misgender trans women, say that only women who were born female have the right to identify as female, and so on.
Since when did anyone have the right to identify as anything?
I need sex based rights regardless of my identity. If I could just identify out of being female, I wouldn't need sex based rights.

I think I would argue that how someone identifies is slightly different to their identity. I'm thinking about 'identity theft' or 'secret identity'.
My identity is built upon my name, my heritage, my childhood background, my family, my experiences, my beliefs, my skills, my behaviours, my appearance etc. All of those are informed by my gender.
I can't imagine anyone saying anything to or about me that would in any way invalidate my identity.
Am I missing something?

*It's relational I think, it's kind of meant to communicate something with others. And this is why I think it's in a basic way inseparable from sex - it's meant to say something to other people in society something about your sex, that it is this, and not that8

Or rather about the gendered construct or set of presentations you identify with.

One cannot become something one is essentially not; one can only imitate it.

When I think about what things are important as part of who I am, sex doesn't come up. Gender does in that I have always felt very uncomfortable with the assumptions and constraints on me due to my sex, that comes into my identity in that I feel feminist is a big part who who I am and always have been even before I knew the word.

The thing about trans/ cis etc is that it assumes that gender is a core part of the identity for most people. A feeling of being feminine or masculine I suppose, or of being one sex or the other. For most people though these are not a strong part of their identity. I get that for trans people it is, obviously. The bit where it falls down is in assuming that all people who aren't trans feel this deeply as well. But they don't. Why they made this assumption, I have no idea. I think it was a genuine assumption.

Of course by the current definitions hardly anyone is cis which is another problem, to put it mildly.

Strangely they are happy to label everyone else as cis without checking how they feel inside. Especially if they're women who are not agreeing with them.

I certainly don't feel I have a 'gender identity'. I have a female body and am treated in certain ways because of it - and there are gendered expectations about how I should behave, some of which I accept and some of which I don't

For women, or men, their 'gender identity' if it exists as such ( I certainly don't identify as a woman. I simply am a woman) is also, perhaps, a modification of the authentic self's expression, in order to conform to certain gendered expectations, with which one can relate to, or perform publicly.

If one cannot relate to any of the social expectations of one's sex, then the presentation is probably going to reflect that. And you may well look uncomfortable or ill at ease if trying to ape something you can't really relate to.

I really do think what we we are talking is social personas/presentations when we talk about 'gender identities'. What we are being asked, by trans people, is to accept their presentation as an authentic indicator of that person's identity.

The problem is that men dressed in 'women's clothing' or performing gendered stereotypes or mannerisms can also look false; and usually does ( few can carry off an authentic presentation; and for most the presentation requires coaching, training and rehearsal, as it does not flow naturally).

Honestly, it just boggles my brain.

We are also being asked to believe that this 'identity' is more meaningful than the reality of their sex. We are being told that sex is not real...it is just bodily bits and pieces and a set of 'appropriate' clothing and mannerisms.

However, I've realised that I was turning into a bitter remoaner and that maybe I shouldn't cling so desperately to an identity that doesn't match reality and actually

Could it be that what you were really identifying with was the attributes of what being European meant to you, So, for example, if you see 'being a European' as an indicator of broad mindedness and an international outlook, than it is those qualities that you identify with. If those attributes are genuine expressions of your own values then it doesn't really matter if you are actually A European or not.

Perhaps you were rejecting the stereotype of what a 'Little Englander' meant to you.The values you attributed to that?

However, I've realised that I was turning into a bitter remoaner and that maybe I shouldn't cling so desperately to an identity that doesn't match reality and actually I should be a bit more flexible in my identity and move on. I will never completely forgive my brexiting relatives, but I don't want to be one of those who hardens into a brexiteer hater, because that confines you to a very fragile bubble having decided everyone outside it is awful

A lot of people really did seem to hang essential parts on their identity on the whole Brexit/Remain vote. That is why it go so heated. People polarised into identity tribes.

Or rather about the gendered construct or set of presentations you identify with.

But that's secondary in a way. My sense is that at the most basic level, particularly around the aesthetic elements, it's about some sort of reproductive signal. In some cases an exaggeration of some of the naturally occurring ones, or the decoration of clothing that covers the reproductive bits of the body.

I always think of the efforts in some political movements to give men and women identical clothing as a way to supposedly de-emphasise sex differences. People always push against that though, and it's a sort of primitive urge to recognise that relation of difference and make it explicit or external. That externalisation is what we want to call the identity. But my sense is that at the most basic level it's about sexual communication and the rest is built on that.

But we're monkeys. Clothes really are a social construct. In warmer places humans went without/ or with not many.

Humans like adornment for sure- the differences in male and female adornment have changed through history though.

It's not innate, it's cultural. In the 80s men had bouffy hair, wore makeup. Men high up in various religions are massive on adornment. Expensive cloths, big hats, jewels. Signal power and wealth.

People don't want to wear 'gender neutral' clothes because they're usual grey binbags. A uniform of conformity in prisons or repressive regimes.

Humans wear clothes which is unusual in the animal kingdom. These garments have a whole load of stuff wrapped into them, what they mean.

But the idea that they are important to reproduction in some way is a bit peculiar. If we all wore grey bin bags there would still be babies.

And clothes are not what being male or female is about.
If you put on a long wig and a dress and makeup it doesn't make you female. It only makes you female to people who think woman is a 2d sex object with no inner life. Ie sexist men.

Do children or the very elderly wear clothes as a reproductive signal?

I would say that generally we have clothes for climate related reasons, but having them we use them to say things. About sex, not surprisingly because that's one of the most universally interesting things to humans, because like you said, we are monkeys. But also about wealth and power and who we are in with etc.

The particular form that takes is variable depending on environment, but not so much the urge to make the differentiation in some way. There are no human beings without culture, we are cultural animals, animals who use symbols, and the things that are important to us become encultured, and there are patterns to how that happens. Trying to stop people from doing it would be like trying to stop them from using language.

So what symbols so we apply to ourselves, what words? We can only think about that if we can stand outside of ourselves in some way. And in some cultures the question seems very low-key, no one really feels the need to try and create themselves whole hog, you are what every other person of your sort is.

Do children or the very elderly wear clothes as a reproductive signal?

Often children wear clothes and hairstyles that deliberately label them as being outside of that. In some cultures elderly people do too.

But cultural phenomena exist because they express human interests and drives. Even if those things don't directly pertain to you at a given moment in time, or if you personally just aren't interested, you don't exist as apart from them, from society as a whole.

Why is so much art and literature about things like food and sex? Because it's important to us.

I don't understand why you are talking about making everyone wear 'gender neutral' clothes.

How does this link back to trans/ identity?

I think I'm missing your point.

In a culture that didn't wear clothes, what would a trans person do? Clothes aren't innate.

How a trans person would express a gender identity would depend strongly on the culture , the societal norms for each sex

So if the culture dictated that women got mates by singing ballads, a transperson would sing ballards?

Interestingly I also read that the prevalence of trans identification was strongly culture dependent

On the feelings of 'invalidation', it was said on a thread earlier today something along the lines of unless you're trans/have gender dysphoria your biological sex is irrelevant to most social interactions.
That felt pretty invalidating to me, but when I dig down to what that means I suppose it's 'dismissive of my experience'. My female sex has shaped most experiences of my life and to be blind to that feels invalidating.
However if I was asked what my identity was or how I identify, sex/gender wouldn't come up. The person I am inside my body I don't feel is 'female' in any way, it just is.
Becoming a mother has become an important part of who I am, it has changed me. I think the most important thing I'll ever do is be my children's Mum (and I'm sure my husband feels the same as a Dad). If someone told me mothering/parenting didn't matter I would feel pretty invalidated. I'm trying to be as honest as I can be. I do a difficult job with lots of responsibility, I am small and young looking and my years of training often get overlooked in favour of more junior people (usually men) who come across as more authorative. That feels pretty invalidating of my hard work and years of experience. But even if I felt important parts of me were unrecognised or minimised or overlooked or invalidated, I would know in myself they had value. They were real to me.
I can imagine if I was trans how hurtful incorrect pronouns or wilful misgendering would be as (I am guessing) my gender would be something important to me, have required a kind of soul searching and commitment others don't have to think about and would likely be very hard won. Identity or parts of yourself that you feel are vital and important do mean a lot to people. It's hard to say transwomen (for example) should be excluded in a way that women aren't from single sex spaces, I sympathise with that limit on their 'identity' and can see how it's painful. I suppose as I don't feel female in my 'self' it was also a bitter lesson to grow up in a world where my female sex put limits on me. It's a really interesting conversation, thank you for bringing it up.

That externalisation is what we want to call the identity. But my sense is that at the most basic level it's about sexual communication and the rest is built on that

I guess what I'm calling a persona/presentation you are calling an externalisation of sexuality....and when it comes to notions of gender, what you seem to be suggesting is that people are presenting/portraying or identifying with a sexual message about their preference or desire? Might that be right?

In a culture that didn't wear clothes, what would a trans person do? Clothes aren't innate

To answer that, you would first of all have to accept that 'transness' is something innate, rather than socially constructed or codified.

Tranness seems, to me, about rejecting the outward social expectations ( & ones own internalised expectations) and presentations of one's sex, and wanting to be 'treated' or 'viewed as a member of the opposite sex would be viewed, or treated, in any specific culture.

Have to say , a lot of it does seem to be sexual in nature. which is why many young lesbians are identifying as male; and why many AGP's thrill at the thought of being seen as a woman. It satiates a desire for a more objectified/passive/ sexual persona? Or something like that.....

My identity:
White
Middle class
Educated
Confident
Mother
Feminine
Wife
None of it was a.conscious choice but I do think many women and men are gorgeous and perhaps if I'd been born 20 years later might have experimented.

Many many shades between two extremes and not my role to judge. Likewise v few men are sexually abusive; v few women are sexually abusive. Therefore I am not minded to think anybody's sexuality or identity is wrong or should be judged. We are all who we are and whoever we are only a teeny, tiny minority ever intend harm.

Do children or the very elderly wear clothes as a reproductive signal

Children tend to wear what their parents dress them in, certainly when young...and when teenagers tend to find a way of expressing their emerging personality and sexual identity.

And the very elderly seem, in the main, to have very little interest in overt social presentations. They wear what is to hand and what is familiar.

In a culture that didn't wear clothes, what would a trans person do?

NATURISM IS TRANSPHOBIC

Identity or parts of yourself that you feel are vital and important do mean a lot to people

I think the problem with fixing one's identity so firmly onto the outward manifestations of inner values and essential qualities, such as 'being a European' ( broad minded and internationalist in outlook), or on to being British( whatever that means to you), or on to membership of a political party ( identification with the values & policies & actions of the group), or on to being a woman ( whatever that means to yo when you are a man).....means that you are essentially tied to that manifestation, and it holds you hostage.

It's hard to say transwomen (for example) should be excluded in a way that women aren't from single sex spaces, I sympathise with that limit on their 'identity' and can see how it's painful

But sex, in the sense of single sex spaces and services and sports has nothing to do with identity. It is far more organic and earthy than that.

I'm a woman and a mother.

I sympathise with that limit on their 'identity' and can see how it's painful

There is always some element of pain when one comes up against the limits of reality. In recent years I love to imagine that I'm living in Rome. It makes me feel a certain way. It stimulates my romantic imagination, and allows me to be the star of my own production. I have fantasies about it, what it would be like, what my life would be like if i lived there...in the perfect apartment in my preferred district. Swanning about......absorbing the sights and the sensations. Yes!

I identify as a lesbian, if someone told me (as people have) that no one is born a lesbian, they only become or choose to be one because they hate men or have had some trauma with men, or have a mental illness and a perversion then that is offensive and invalidates my identity. I am imagine this is what trans people feel when people use the same arguments against them. Straight people often don’t see their sexuality as an identity or of much importance because it is the “normal” and the default, therefore causes them no issues, this is the same with non trans people, I don’t think about my own gender identity, because why would I? It aligns with my biological sex and causes me no issues what’s so ever, so I don’t give it any thought. And before anyone starts with the whole “you can’t change sex” I’m not talking about people saying trans women are real women, I’m talking about trans people being told there’s essentially no such thing as being transgender and that they’re perverse and mentally ill.

I guess what I'm calling a persona/presentation you are calling an externalisation of sexuality....and when it comes to notions of gender, what you seem to be suggesting is that people are presenting/portraying or identifying with a sexual message about their preference or desire? Might that be right?

Yes - I mean I think a persona is more than that, it can come out of other elements of human nature. But most of them are expressions of deeper needs, they aren't unconnected to those, I think?

In a way I am maybe trying to go a step back - if we were sort of cave people without being reflective enough to think about identity, how would we signal to potential mates that we were interested? Humans don't have obvious fertile times, so instead maybe we flirt in some way, give a gift or wink or whatever. And as we know in many social animals sexual display also is used in other ways too like establishing hierarchies or creating group bonding. So I think what I am suggesting is that as tool using animals, we also use tools like clothing, among others, to help us accomplish all our purposes. We use them sometimes as a substitute for direct language and we also use our language and tools to create culture which gives us meaning.

So perhaps identity, as an anthropological phenomena, grows out of something like this? Some animals will do this sort of thing, but it's when we become self-reflective and self-concious about these performances that they become a persona or an identity?