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?

including keeping the female name that my parents gave me

Plenty of people don’t have gendered names.

not telling people not to use the pronouns they automatically use in relation to me

People who use pronouns in your presence are very rude.

wearing clothes labelled as ‘women’s clothes

Really? You never wear clothes just because they fit regardless of the label?

shaving my armpits, occasionally wearing make up and painting my nails

And men shouldn’t do this because...?

Sorry - third person pronouns rude - ‘you and I’ obviously necessary!

Yes @merrymouse the fact those things are a ‘female gender identity’ shoes how deep the sexism runs.

Why can you not get past DSDs?

I was just responding to the pp who implied that modern scientific methods could always determine if a person was male or female.

The person in question would, as I understand it, say they are intersex rather than male, because their sex characteristics are mixed - and (while it is not for me to give an opinion on their specific sex) I would agree in general that a concept of sex based solely on chromosomes is fairly far removed from the concept of sex as generally understood.

What has this got to do with ‘gender’? Unless you’re insinuating all trans people have an undetected DSD?

I was responding to a pp

I would agree in general that a concept of sex based solely on chromosomes is fairly far removed from the concept of sex as generally understood. I am sorry. You're going to have to flaot that one passed me again.

What is it generally understood to be?

I would agree in general that a concept of sex based solely on chromosomes is fairly far removed from the concept of sex as generally understood.

So what do people understand it as? Shaving armpits?

The person in question would, as I understand it, say they are intersex rather than male,

Hang on a moment, so you would say an intersex person is intersex, because of their physical sex characteristics? Doesnt that go against everything you have said about physical sex characteristics not being a determination of sex?

You can also determine sex by type of gamete produced.

What you are looking at is reproductive role. Reproductive role is not a marker of value (even viruses reproduce), but it does have unavoidable consequences e.g. female humans who want to control their fertility need particular rights.

In comparison it really doesn’t matter whether you shave your armpits.

Wouldn’t it be better to dismantle these so everyone can be their authentic selves, rather than reinforcing them by saying they’re part of your female ‘gender’?

I completely agree that the end goal should be to dismantle gender norms and stereotypes and I personally put a lot of effort into this - challenging assumptions expressed by others irl, and particularly among friends in relation to their children.

But I also think that society is a depressingly far way from being free from gender norms, and it is too late for most of us to ‘undo’ the part of ourselves that is formed by having been raised female (or male) in a society where these expectations are ingrained in most people at the deepest level. And not all gender norms are necessarily damaging or pernicious in every case - as a female, I was socialised to be expressive of my emotions in a way that many men are not encouraged or allowed to be.

We all have to find a way to exist as happily as we can within the world as it is now, not as we would wish it to be. I can entirely see why some people who feel radically at odds with the gender expectations placed on them would prefer to ‘live as’ (and be regarded by others as) the sex/gender the norms relating to which they feel more comfortable with.

It’s hard to keep up with the speed of responses, and my lunch break is over. I will be back though.

Sex is binary- this is genotype. (There isn't a distribution curve or a spectrum and even accounting for gonasome translocation you either have a Y or you don't)

Primary Sex characteristics are bimodal - Phenotype (Physical and behavioural )- tiny bit of overlap, DSD's fall here)

Secondary Sex characteristics are bimodal (Physical and behavioural Phenotype -roughly 30% overlap whole population)

Gender is socially constructed but based on the median female/male personality characteristics rather than the mean.

There may be a nature element to it (behavioural phenotypical presentation) but the dimporphic brain studies rather suggest the largest component is nuture(social conditioning).

Group A - people who fit close to or beyond the median for their sex on the normal distribution curve for "Gender" characteristics and are happy with it (gender conforming)

Group B - people who fit on the normal distribution curve for "Gender" characteristics closer to 0 on the x axis than the median for their sex and are happy with it (Gender non conforming)

Group C - people who are gender non conforming and are not happy with it. (Gender dysphoria, childhood onset trans or just unhappy)

Group D - people who are gender conforming and still don't like it because either they don't like the pressures that go with the societal expectations or they are a male with a paraphilia.

Transgender individuals have always existed, in every society throughout history.

There is nothing about transgender individuals, that can't be explained by the 2 overlapping phenotypical normal distribution curves of a dimorphic species, an understanding of erotic target location errors and an understanding of adolescent psychology. As a culture we have accepted it, made sure that people in extreme discomfort have laws to protect their human rights and access medical care and the ability to transition if necessary.

Any of the groups can believe that gender identity is a tangiable thing (The pressures to conform are certainly real). They construct a narrative about themselves around one of the normal distribution curves, in the same way I might define myself by identifying with my profession, my appearance, my role, my social class, my race or my hobby. In some cases peole opt out altogether and make an identity out of their non conformity (non binary Q+++).
The grip of gender ideology and the concept of gender identity (beyond dysphoria) on the other hand is a belief system.

@AdHominemNonSequitur

Can I ask you - in the graph you have posted above, what is plotted? I mean, if you are going to plot someone at +2 or -7, plus 2 what? Minus 7 what?

Good question. The bimodal distribution diagrams are all abstract and to illustrate a point. It is standard statistical/ normal distribution curve (bell curve).It is statistical probability theory but it models populations and natural occurences accurately on nearly everything. Because we are dimorphic though the bell curves are seperate for men and women for many things.

The area under the curve is always 100% and the Y axis is always percentile. The x axis can be anything. The +2, -7 are stand ins. The model works for nearly all dimorphic traits though.
You could do a seperate graph for each physical or behavioural characteristic or do it on an arbitory overall perceived masculinity/ femininity score. Nearly all population based stuff has a normal distribution curve. If the characteristic was height it would be ft and inches or cm on the X axis and number of people (percentile of the population) on the Y. If it were agreeableness or one of the Cattels personality trait scores it would be it would be the persons percentage score on the X and number of people on the Y. If it were external genitalia ambiguity, it would be the clinical score or the individual componenents of that score like, clitoral/ penile length in mm. If it were preference for playing with dolls it would be a parent reported score or observation. If it were testosterone/ oestrogen blood levels it would be ng/dl. If it were adipose tissue it could be by % body composition. Fat distribution could be a caliper measurement in mm oor hip width in inches.

Nearly all population based stuff has a normal distribution curve.

And thus if you ever plot some variable and you come out with a graph with two clear peaks like that, then what you're seeing is two distinct populations combined into a group, and you'd get more information by identifying those populations and separating them.

One of the first steps to understanding things - getting rid of that "double population overlay confusion". And the step that transactivists are trying to block - denying that there are two distinct populations.

@midgedude

You were asking why you may have been deleted

I gave you one likely explanation based on how you were expressing yourself As I thought you were actually interested

To be fair, that deletion could easily be because someone(?) reported it, a bit like a hate crime!

Not all reports lead to deletions , but if there is half a chance something could be interpreted in the way the reporter suggests then it goes

@NecessaryScene1

Nearly all population based stuff has a normal distribution curve.

And thus if you ever plot some variable and you come out with a graph with two clear peaks like that, then what you're seeing is two distinct populations combined into a group, and you'd get more information by identifying those populations and separating them.

One of the first steps to understanding things - getting rid of that "double population overlay confusion". And the step that transactivists are trying to block - denying that there are two distinct populations.

Exactly! That's my understanding. Two seperate populations in terms of primary and secondary sex characteristics. Easiest to visualise with something like height. As I understand in a perfect bell curve the median, mean and mode are the same, but this is rare. In most sex disaggregated data, men have a wider and shallower (lower frequency) shape, meaning that you are more likely to have more extreme male outliers (at both ends) (aggression/IQ/height) the mean will be similar but more females will hit the median. Out of 100 women there are likely to be more women arount the 5'5 female average, than men around the 5'10 male average but more male outlyers (hyper tall, hyper small).? because of back up /silenced X.

Is there any such thing as an absence of gender identity? Are people who claim not to have one merely deluded? How can we know? Should we take their word for it?

@Shizuku

Is there any such thing as an absence of gender identity? Are people who claim not to have one merely deluded? How can we know? Should we take their word for it?

Interesting question. I am confused over my national identity. I don't know if I'm English or British. Sometimes I feel English, sometimes British. Sometimes I feel a common bond with Scottish people, sometimes I don't. That makes me feel English. I lived abroad for a quarter of a century. That made me feel British. I have friends who claim to feel no sense of national identity, but feel citizens of the world instead. But I do know I don't have an innate sense of national identity, though I have one friend, from Belgrade, who insists that he is genetically programmed to be Serbian. I believe he is wrong.

Gender identity is a thing is you believe it is.

The whole concept has only arisen in the last 10 years - certainly in Britain. It arose from Queer Theory. Queer Theory used the term 'gender' as a substitute/interchangeably fo/withr the word sex ( even though it actually has a different application and meaning) It was focused upon the performances of gender as being the true reality of the self.

It posits itself as being a force for breaking down what were traditionally called 'gender stereotypes' - rejected by both the women's and the gay liberation movements - and yet at the same time it very much reinforces them.

"Queer theory scholars have developed theories which suggest that gender is fluid, flexible and subject to change. Judith Butler’s work is key to this understanding. She argues that gender is performative – meaning that the performance of gender is what makes gender exist (Butler, 2002). People bring gender into being through gender acts. Such acts are not necessarily deliberate or consciously chosen, but are the repetitive practices that perpetually reproduce gender – for example, wearing make-up, trousers or skirts, or calling people ‘he’ or ‘she’. Butler suggests that gender does not come from a rooted identity somewhere inside us, but that it only exists through our actions, and the actions of others in society towards us. ‘Gender reality is performative which means, quite simply, that it is real only to the extent that it is performed’ (Butler, 1988: 527)"

"Queer scholars reject the idea of a stable gender identity. Butler contends that the ‘doing’ and the performance of gender is what constitutes the identity of a given subject. The idea of having a central essential identity is just an illusion, created by our performances of gender. For Butler, gender is not a real ‘thing’, but purely a social construction" : www.alignplatform.org/2-queer-theory-and-gender-norms

Is there any such thing as an absence of gender identity? Are people who claim not to have one merely deluded? How can we know? Should we take their word for it

There can only be an "absence" if you believe there is a presence.

Is there any such thing as an absence of gender identity? Are people who claim not to have one merely deluded? How can we know? Should we take their word for it

Indeed, why should we take anyone's word for such an intangible thing?

Hang on a moment, so you would say an intersex person is intersex, because of their physical sex characteristics? Doesnt that go against everything you have said about physical sex characteristics not being a determination of sex?

I was saying what (as I understood it) that specific intersex person said she considered her sex to be. Also, when did I say physical sex characteristics arent a determination of sex? I’m not actually sure what that means