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?

Or they could be linked to sociability as a behavioural trait. Some people are more 'sociable', plastic, more easily influenced and malleable. Others are more 'hard wired', stubborn or independent, less easy to influence.

There is some evidence there's a god gene. If you have it you are more likely to believe in a god and vice versa.

If proven it still shouldn't mean I have to forgo fish on Friday, cover my hair or bathe in the Ganges.

The sooner the better for the law to fully clearly stop treating gender identity as material reality that supersedes sex. Protect as religious belief though. That's one for parliament to clarify. Soon please.

The evidence is that being trans is right there in the DNA:

www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/4592/presentation/578abstract

"Conclusion: We identified genetic variants in 20 genes that may play a role in transgender identity. The most promising of these include variants of genes involved in neurologic development and sex hormone pathways

I can barely even be bothered, as it’s so clear that you don’t read the studies you cite, understand them, or take on anything anyone says to help you understand the limitations or complexities of what you’re posting, but here goes nothing.

Other posters have highlighted that this is a really preliminary finding that needs to be replicated many more times before it can be used to form a solid conclusion. And then, Edwin if it does, all it proves is that there may well be a genetic underpinning that causes people to believe that they have a gender identity, and that it might differ from their actual sex.

But if and when we do get there, the answer is still a resounding “so what?” It doesn’t make it any more real than their chromosomes, their genitals, their secondary sex characteristics. It doesn’t take men out of the category of being male and plop them in the category of being female, or vice versa. It’s just a thing that causes people to think a certain way about themselves, the same way that it looks as though there maybe a biological underpinning to being more liberal or conservative, to being a night owl or a lark, to tending towards extroversion or introversion. It’s just part of life’s rich tapestry. It’s not more real than sex. It’s interesting, but it doesn’t override how humans reproduce, or how our society organises itself.

*even if it does, not Edwin, I’ve no idea why autocucmber dragged poor Edwin into it 🤣

Except when it gets prioritized over sex. Except when women’s single sex spaces are considered open to those who identify as women but are male. Except when children and teens are led to believe that with hormones and surgery they can become the other sex. Except when sex balanced boards and panels become ‘gender’ balanced and females once again are represented by males and sometimes males with a different agenda than advocating for females and their needs due to their female biology.

While I agree with your general point, I think you missed my point.

It makes not a jot of difference whether gender identity exists, in the same way was it doesn’t matter whether God exists. What matters is that people believe it exists.

@Seldon

Except when it gets prioritized over sex. Except when women’s single sex spaces are considered open to those who identify as women but are male. Except when children and teens are led to believe that with hormones and surgery they can become the other sex. Except when sex balanced boards and panels become ‘gender’ balanced and females once again are represented by males and sometimes males with a different agenda than advocating for females and their needs due to their female biology.

While I agree with your general point, I think you missed my point.

It makes not a jot of difference whether gender identity exists, in the same way was it doesn’t matter whether God exists. What matters is that people believe it exists.

And some don’t 🤷🏼‍♀️

What matters is that people are not obliged to believe in it to affirm another person.

I think you’re missing my point.

@Seldon

I think you’re missing my point.

Which is what? Some people believe gender exists? Anything else?

I thought it was clear but I’ll try again, but I’ll preface it by saying I think we’re on the same side.

The OP’s question is whether gender identity exists and people are putting forward evidence on either side (this study or that study). However, my point is that whether it actually exists is irrelevant because people believe it exists.

Therefore what matters is that when two believe systems and rights clash, society has to find a way to resolve these competing beliefs.

If I draw a parallel with religion, society didn’t make progress on issues like women’s rights and gay rights by proving that God doesn’t exist. Rather, on a gradual and case by case basis, society used means such as the courts to resolve these clashes.

That is my point. Go ahead and try to prove gender identity does or doesn’t exist, but as I say, I think it’s irrelevant.

I think we’re on the same side. I don’t think gender identity exists. I hope that’s clearer.

People are entitled to believe what ever they like. What they are not entitled to do is 1. force other people to say they believe it 2. Base laws on beliefs which cannot be evidenced

Re-reading it for clarity, when I say people believe it exists, I mean to say that some people believe it exists and some believe it doesn’t

Seldon

I understood. I merely pointing out that sadly, it is being made to matter. whereas I agree, it should not be treated anywhere near as important as it is.

And I agree with you, what is effectively a religious belief is being used to coerce others and chip away at women’s rights

If I draw a parallel with religion, society didn’t make progress on issues like women’s rights and gay rights by proving that God doesn’t exist. Rather, on a gradual and case by case basis, society used means such as the courts to resolve these clashes.

Not sure I agree with this. We did have to delegitimise religious authority to make advances in women's rights.

And the problem with the trans movement is that the religious beliefs within gender ideology aren't being acknowledged as such. It's being dressed up as science and people believe there's science behind it, so it's borrowing the legitimacy and perceived authority of science. So it unfortunately is important to push back on that and take away that perceived legitimacy.

If TRAs were openly acknowledging that "gender identity" is a spiritual belief we could all just say "well, we're a secular society, you're free to believe what you like but so are the rest of us." But they're not acknowledging that point so we can't just move on to the "okay, believe what you like, live and let live" bit.

Surely if the brain studies Shizuku refers to are such strong evidence of the biological basis of gender identity, they should be useable as a diagnostic tool to determine once and for all who really IS transgender and who isn't? No more worry about self-ID, whether to have SRS and how much counselling to have first, suspicions of men wanting to get access to female spaces etc. If you think you have gender dysphoria, you just go to the doctor for a brain scan and they can tell you that you're actually the opposite sex to your appearance. Hell they could even do this with newborn infants and start raising the transgender ones as such before they're verbal or know anything about it.

I always wonder with these claims of self reported psychological phenomena being really biological: If such a test were available, would you be willing to say to all the people who thought they were transgender but the test showed otherwise: "It's clear that you're not trans, you just thought you were. We will have to look elsewhere for the reason for your discomfort".

If not, why not? That's what happens when you go to the doctor with chest pain and blood in your phlegm to find out if you have a biologically defined disease like lung cancer. If sufficiently rigorous tests show no sign of cancer cells, then you don't have cancer. You may well have symptoms similar to the symptoms of it, but you accept that they don't indicate it.

And what kind of scientific method is it that says biological evidence can prove when something does exist as a biological phenomenon, but the absence of any such evidence can't prove when it doesn't?

In reality of course, there is all the difference in the world between producing supportive biological evidence for a condition that is still nonetheless defined purely by subjective self-report, and actually defining the condition biologically (with all the rigor of testability and honesty about negative outcomes that that entails).

And brains are plastic, and develop and take shape differently over a lifetime in reesponse to different experiences and learning. So simple measured differences in brain function actually say very little about what is nature and what nurture.

@FifteenToes 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Wait for the ‘oh but not all gender dysphoria is physical, some of it is mental’ blah

@Sophoclesthefox

The evidence is that being trans is right there in the DNA:

www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/4592/presentation/578abstract

"Conclusion: We identified genetic variants in 20 genes that may play a role in transgender identity. The most promising of these include variants of genes involved in neurologic development and sex hormone pathways

I can barely even be bothered, as it’s so clear that you don’t read the studies you cite, understand them, or take on anything anyone says to help you understand the limitations or complexities of what you’re posting, but here goes nothing.

Other posters have highlighted that this is a really preliminary finding that needs to be replicated many more times before it can be used to form a solid conclusion. And then, Edwin if it does, all it proves is that there may well be a genetic underpinning that causes people to believe that they have a gender identity, and that it might differ from their actual sex.

But if and when we do get there, the answer is still a resounding “so what?” It doesn’t make it any more real than their chromosomes, their genitals, their secondary sex characteristics. It doesn’t take men out of the category of being male and plop them in the category of being female, or vice versa. It’s just a thing that causes people to think a certain way about themselves, the same way that it looks as though there maybe a biological underpinning to being more liberal or conservative, to being a night owl or a lark, to tending towards extroversion or introversion. It’s just part of life’s rich tapestry. It’s not more real than sex. It’s interesting, but it doesn’t override how humans reproduce, or how our society organises itself.

I've realised what's happening. They are just throwing a bunch of studies which look at if they might fit at the theoretical fuzzy felt and just hoping something sticks. A study only has value as support for a position, so if it fits all well and good. If it doesn't, then try another one. It's not necessary to read beyond the title.

I don't think they are used to people following the link, reading and understanding. I suspect the ploppers often have not read nor understood themselves.

Yes.

It is like posting a letter with political intention outlining a point of view with ‘thousands’ of scientists as signatories without really looking at who those signatories are and if they are heavily involved in ensuring their business growth is reliant on that view continuing, and whether other signatories are even relevant.

Like duh. If we all signed a letter, there might be some pretty impressive quals mentioned too.

I just want some clear critical thought to accompany the links and the statements. I actually welcome discussion that is thought provoking.

And brains are plastic, and develop and take shape differently over a lifetime in reesponse to different experiences and learning. So simple measured differences in brain function actually say very little about what is nature and what nurture

As is 'identity'. Our identity shifts and change throughout our life in response to time, experience, changing conditions and so on.

The whole concept of a 'gender identity' is totally reliant on other signifiers for what it means to be male or female. These signifiers will vary between individuals and between societies, and themselves will shift and change with time. Identity is not fixed in stone.

Yes, Helleofabore and 30percentrecycled, that makes sense.

I've just remembered the letter of denunciation of Prof. Stock a while back, signed by 600 academics who made basic errors in their account of her views. It seems that the important thing is that a position is opposed, a stance is taken, and that the accuracy, coherence or simple truth of that stance is unimportant.

@Helleofabore

but there are very many more DSDs than that.

And we keep telling you that with modern techniques, people with medical conditions can be identified as either male or female.

But it doesn’t suit your agenda.

The actual people with those conditions say you're wrong.

Some people with DSD have gender identity that doesn't match their actual sex

So?

Still doesn't mean that everyone has a gender identity

Still doesn't mean that gender identity is a characteristic around which laws should be based

Still doesn't mean that sex is complicated

Still doesn't mean that trans people have any DSD

Oh, you’re back, shizuku. Are you able to look at fifteentoes 21.26 post from yesterday and give your thoughts on it? All of the studies that you are citing must have the end point of being able to accurately diagnose trans gender identities, don’t they? Or what are they actually for?

Some people might think this looks like medicalisation, or gatekeeping, of course...perhaps you could also address that. Keen to hear your thoughts.

@midgedude

Some people with DSD have gender identity that doesn't match their actual sex

So?

Still doesn't mean that everyone has a gender identity

Still doesn't mean that gender identity is a characteristic around which laws should be based

Still doesn't mean that sex is complicated

Still doesn't mean that trans people have any DSD

Well, at least you agree that gender identity exists. You might want to keep quiet about that round here though ;-)