Is there any such thing as gender identity?

[9toenails]

Here is an article by Alex Byrne, Professor of Philosophy at MIT:
What is gender identity?

Byrne concludes, in part, as follows:
' If there is some kind of “gender identity” that is universal in humans, and which causes dysphoria when mismatched with sex, it remains elusive. No one has yet found a way of detecting its presence, and verifying that it is causally responsible for dysphoria .'

In fact, it seems, there just is no such thing as gender identity in the way trans ideologues intend. Some, noticing lack of anything like it in themselves, nevertheless allow that others may nevertheless suffer from its presence. I think this mistaken, factually and strategically.

The existence of gender identity is foundational for much trans ideology. Its importance can be deduced from its inclusion in Humpty Dumpty’s Stonewall's glossary entry on transphobia, 'including denying ... gender identity ', as part of orthodox trans dogma.

The foundations of trans ideology are built on the quicksand of gender identity. Pointing out the shaky nature of these foundations cannot but assist in demolishing the whole edifice of this ideology before it does any more harm to women, children, and wider society in general.

Of course those who believe in gender identity should not be discriminated against or disadvantaged in any way because of such belief, any more than should believers in guardian angels or invisible human auras. It does not follow that such beliefs themselves should be given any credence. Nor, a fortiori , does it follow that social policy or law should be based on any such beliefs.

There is no such thing as gender identity.

Or, perhaps science progresses is there now some way of detecting its presence, contrary to Alex Byrne's assertion?

The problem with gender identity is not only that there is no proof it exists, it's that no non-circular definition of it exists.

I think that what does exist, for some people, is a strong affinity with the stereotypes associated with the male or female sex. But I think this affinity changes over time anyway - many little girls go through a phase of adoring pink and wanting to be princesses, but a few years later they're wearing jeans and jumpers and their interests aren't especially feminine.

I think Ray Blanchard said that gender identity really only makes sense when used in the context of someone who has gender dysphoria - it's the strong belief they should have been born the opposite sex. Whether that belief persists depends on the individual and what support or care they receive. But it makes no sense at all to say that that belief would somehow mean the person really is the opposite sex from the one they were born.

Thanks OP I'll read. The whole gender identity thing has to be ferociously policed because it doesn't make any sense. Even logically - most women I have spoken to about this have no idea what this 'gender identity' is - they don't FEEL like women, they ARE women and have grown up with society's expectations of what that means. And if real flesh and blood women didn't exist, what would you be 'identifying' with? So if women don't have a sense of a 'female gender identity' how can someone who is biologically male claim to have one? And this internal feeling would have to be universal - all women would have to have it if this is the real way we distinguish men from women. But they don't. And anyway, as we aren't mindreaders, how would we know?

None of it makes any sense whatsoever. Which is why its proponents are always so vague and so unwilling to answer any questions. Its a suspension of critical faculties on a grand scale. It was very entertaining indeed to see Jo Swinson tie herself up in knots during the general election trying to respond to a simple question - 'What is your definition of 'woman'. And of course Penny Mordaunt who declared from the dispatch box recently that transwomen are women was unwilling to answer the same question on Mumsnet.

It's not good enough. If you want to change the law in radical ways, you cannot do it on the basis of an ill defined concept, with no scientific underpinning, which you are unwilling to even define.

It's not good enough. If you want to change the law in radical ways, you cannot do it on the basis of an ill defined concept, with no scientific underpinning, which you are unwilling to even define.

Amen to that.

People's feelings are real.

This doesn't mean that they can or should be the basis for legislation.

I think Ray Blanchard said that gender identity really only makes sense when used in the context of someone who has gender dysphoria

I like this, someone who has gender dysphoria can be said to have a gender identity. But this doesn't mean people without gender dysphoria have a gender identity. It follows that in treating someone for gender dysphoria treatments on the basis of investigating their gender identity with a view to validating it are not necessarily going to be effective.

Sex is universal, the concept and definition of sex has remained constant across different cultures and through time.

But there is no agreement between cultures on gender roles and the rules sometimes reverse; so 'gender' cannot be rooted in biology.

What it seems to boil down to is that you can define "woman" as being based around sex or gender. But not both at the same time. If woman is a feeling, it can be felt by anyone regardless of their sex - and lots of women don't feel they have a gender identity. If woman refers to sex, it doesn't matter how you much you feel you are a woman, you aren't unless you are of the female sex.

The problem at the moment seems to be that TRAs know this won't hold together so they are pushing the idea that not only are TW women because of gender identity, they are also biologically female (see The Greens for how easily this has taken hold as an idea which surely would have been laughed at a few years ago). Once you accept the idea of a female penis then gender identity doesn't really matter so much because any male can be female and vice versa.

My personal hunch is that they make it so incomprehensible it can mean anything they want it to mean, so when the ‘meaning’ gets exposed as sexist bullshit (like dresses and make up) they can move it on to something else, or use word salad.

Anything that isn’t biology is a sexist stereotype

Isn't gender identity a facet of personality?

Have I got this right? If you have an imaginary sense of something you think you ought to feel if you were someone else (a woman), then that automatically gives you "gender identity", and alligns you with all the other women on the planet who also have this same sense of "gender identity". Sorry if I`m being a bit slow.

Yes - gender identity is a person's own innate sense of what sex they are. The broad scientific consensus is that it is biological in origin.

You can read more about it on this page from the American Academy of Pediatrics - a professional association of pediatricians with 67,000 members in primary care and sub-specialist areas.

www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/gradeschool/Pages/Gender-Identity-and-Gender-Confusion-In-Children.aspx

It's a philosophical impossibility for gender identity to exist.
Like a red thing which is blue.
Or a shared thing which isn't shared.
Or a circular square.

For "FEMALE GENDER IDENTITY" to exist, you'd need to meet the following conditions

1. A tangible, objective definition of female and male. This would be sex.
2. A tangible, objective definition of gender and of identity (never happens, but let's pretend it does)
3. A demonstration that All females (physical sex as per cond 1.) manifest the objective condition 2 (whatever gender identity characteristic you believe is exclusive to that sex)
4. And that NO males manifest it.

If I say females are the sex that make eggs, and then I manage to find and also EVIDENCE a 'gender identity' characteristic that I think they all miraculously share, like, er, a penchant for pink, then the moment I find a male person who likes pink, the result is NOT "oh wow, he's obviously female". Because we already categorised him as male. What happens is that we realise we made a mistake with condition 2. Liking pink turns out to be a human trait occurring in both sexes. He's the evidence.

If you start with

1. Swans exist
2. All swans are white

And then you find a black swan The correct conclusion is I was wrong, my assumption at 2 must be corrected. Not all swans are white.

The incorrect conclusion is "This swan is black therefore it is not a swan. I must now go back and redefine what a swan is to ensure this black swan no longer is a swan"

You can work it through with any example you like.

Once you see the error in logic, it's embarrassingly obvious.

"Here is a personality characteristic. I'll call it female."
-Does it occur in both sexes?
"Yes"

• Is it also absent in members of both sexes?

"Yes"

• So it's basically a human personality trait then.

"Not after I reclassify people who have it as female and people who don't as male"

It's the equivalent of shooting an arrow indiscriminately and retrospectively calling whatever you happened to hit, 'the target'

@Barracker very clear explanation - thank you!

@shizuku - that site says that gender identity cannot change. Where does that leave detransitioners?

[quote Shizuku]Yes - gender identity is a person's own innate sense of what sex they are. The broad scientific consensus is that it is biological in origin.

You can read more about it on this page from the American Academy of Pediatrics - a professional association of pediatricians with 67,000 members in primary care and sub-specialist areas.

www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/gradeschool/Pages/Gender-Identity-and-Gender-Confusion-In-Children.aspx[/quote]
Here we go... the American Academy of Paediatrics is an organisation that pushes ridiculous theories. They will not stand against FGM - which they more politely refer to as Female Genital Cutting. Grim.
Their stance on ‘transgender children’...
In 2018, the AAP issued a policy endorsing "gender affirmation" as the only acceptable response to a child expressing transgender feelings[53][54] The claims made in that policy were fact-checked by sex researcher James Cantor, who listed multiple factual inaccuracies and key information to be missing, however.[55] When asked for comment about those inaccuracies by The Economist, AAP responded only by restating the policy
Paediatricians are forced to register with them and follow their dodgy ideologies or risk having their license to practice removed.

You can see gender identity in action in this study of 16 "genetic males" born with a condition called "cloacal exstrophy" (it's not an intersex condition).

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

14 of them were given a "sex change" shortly after birth (within 2 weeks in all but one where it was performed after 12 weeks).

They were all raised as girls with no knowledge of their male status. The parents were instructed to avoid revealing information on their child's sex to anyone at any time, especially to the subject, and were instructed that disclosure of such information might harm the subject's psychosexual development. Two subjects were reared male because the parents refused to have them reassigned to female sex.

The majority have expressed a male gender identity despite being raised as girls. Here's an excerpt:

"Thus, subjects sorted themselves into three groups: those living as females, those living with unclear sexual identity, and those living as males. Subjects 1 through 5, who were living as females, were 9 to 19 years old at the end of follow-up (Table 1). All used unambiguously female names and female restrooms consistently. None had knowledge of her birth status. Four had been taking estrogen for two to six years, although their parents were unclear whether the hormone had any behavioral effects. None had dated. None discussed sexual activity or sexual attractions (whereas three adolescent genetic females with cloacal exstrophy did). Parents noted in follow-up interviews that these subjects were generally content. However, the parents did not want these children to participate in follow-up interviews and answered all follow-up questions themselves."

"Three subjects (Subjects 6, 7, and 8) had apparently unclear sexual identity. Identifying herself as a female at the initial assessment at the age of 10 years, Subject 6 subsequently angrily refused to discuss her sexual identity with anyone after learning, at the age of 12, that her birth status was male. After 2½ years of suggestions from her physician, she recently began taking estrogen but continues to refuse to discuss sex. Subjects 7 and 8 have persistently and spontaneously declared their sexual identity as males since the age of nine years, before the initial assessment. They live as females because their parents have rejected their declarations. Both stated during the initial assessment that they wanted a penis. Both take exogenous estrogen and are intermittently compliant with treatment, and both state that they would prefer to receive testosterone. Both identified themselves as male and used male restrooms when they were away from their families and school."

"Eight subjects (Subjects 9 through 16) (Table 1) were living as males. All eight used unambiguous male names and male restrooms consistently. Two were reared as male from birth. The six subjects assigned to female sex as infants who subsequently reassigned themselves to male sex legally changed their birth certificates and school registration to male. Subjects 9 and 10 spontaneously declared themselves male without knowledge of their birth status, at the ages of 12 and 7 years, respectively. Subjects 11, 12, 13, and 14 assumed a male identity after their parents informed them of their birth status, at ages 5, 7, 7, and 18 years, respectively. All eight living as males discussed sexual interests and activity; the four adolescents stated that they were attracted to girls. The three adolescents initially assigned to female sex take testosterone and are compliant with treatment. Because of a severely dysfunctional family, Subject 9 received no testosterone until he was incarcerated in a maximumsecurity prison for armed robbery at the age of 17 years, yet he dated and was sexually active with girls from the age of 15 years. Two of the three subjects over 17 years of age date girls. All eight subjects desire to undergo surgical construction of a penis."

"All subjects living as female expressed difficulty fitting in with female peers (genetic females with cloacal exstrophy did not), although those converting to male sex reported few subsequent social problems with females. All 16 subjects described few difficulties fitting in with males."

[quote Gerla]@Barracker very clear explanation - thank you!

@shizuku - that site says that gender identity cannot change. Where does that leave detransitioners?[/quote]
Or even middle aged transwomen who only realise in their later years that they are women?

"Here we go... the American Academy of Paediatrics is an organisation that pushes ridiculous theories."

67,000 professional pediatricians: "Here's what we know."

You: "La, la la - I'm not listening."

Gender identity is like god. If you believe in God, He exists. For you.

If you don't believe in god, and can say so out loud, and can refuse to participate in religious rituals, and no harm comes of this, then you may be living in a free and fair society.

If you believe in God, and can say so out loud, and can participate in religious rituals, while your neighbours refuse to participate, or participate in their own religious rituals, and no harm comes of this, then you may be living in a free and fair society.

If you don't believe in god, and cannot say so out loud, and cannot refuse to participate in religious rituals, because harm comes of this, then you do not live in a free and fair society. Then you live in a theocracy where harm will eventually come to all dissenters, however minor.

I don't think that study demonstrates what you think it demonstrates, Shizuku.

@shizuku

Soontobe60 - "There are serious concerns over the objectivity of the source you quoted".
You: "La, la la - I'm not listening."

I don't think that study demonstrates what you think it demonstrates, Shizuku.

Exactly! If anything, it's the complete opposite....

From Shizuku's linked article:

Meanwhile, "gender identity" refers to an internal sense people have of who they are that comes from an interaction of biological traits, developmental influences, and environmental conditions.

Does anyone know if this interaction has ever been modelled and the model tested empirically? Because I'd need something like that to be able to treat it as a working concept. But it would be a very complex thing to do.

You can see gender identity in action in this study of 16 "genetic males" born with a condition called "cloacal exstrophy" (it's not an intersex condition).

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

14 of them were given a "sex change" shortly after birth (within 2 weeks in all but one where it was performed after 12 weeks).

Only four children in the cohort spontaneously declared themselves to be boys. Five had persistent female identity. The others were either raised as boys or at some point were told they were boys.

It's also evident that the children didn't fit in with other girls or show 'female' patterns of behaviour. It's not clear if this is because they had some innate sense that they were actually boys, or if the small number who spontaneously concluded that the were boys did so based on the observation that they were somehow different from other girls.

'Gender identity' is not the only possible explanation for these results.

My personal hunch is that they make it so incomprehensible it can mean anything they want it to mean, so when the ‘meaning’ gets exposed as sexist bullshit (like dresses and make up) they can move it on to something else, or use word salad.

Exactly this.

Fabulous post Barracker.