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?

Gender roles and perception, which is essentially what gender identity is a a man made construct. I have personal experience of those who have transitioned, and also those who changed their minds. Many of the issues I saw these young people struggling with were related to not fitting gender stereotypes, but also struggling with sexual orientation along with low self esteem.

I don't know what I think really, but I'm very uneasy with surgery to physically change bodies, when most of the issues would be non existent if accepted people for who they are and didn't question desire to cross dress, be gender neutral and generally accept them as humans. Even simple things like me having to declare my title annoys me, I have a name, why do I need to say if I'm married or not!

I'm pretty sure that body mutilation isn't the answer, but if you are 6'3 and want to wear frilly dresses go ahead, society should be more comfortable with those who don't look "normal for sex"

You’re like a bot. Nothing gets through. No, there’s nothing else that you can help me with today, goodbye.

But he's got one more pamphlet to show you! "That's God right there..."

There's a reason our ancient ancestors evolved the ability to politely but firmly close the door on Jehovah's Witnesses.

I wear lots of female clothing

Since most clothing designed for men is designed for men, longer arms, no room for boobs ,bigger bodies

It's like a return to witch dunking

John Money threadreaderapp.com/thread/1224766770805866499.html

Me: "It is quite significant that three high court judges made the decision unanimously..."

Poster: Well, at least that means you agree with the Judge that said that Maya Forstater's views were "not worthy of respect in democratic society".

Maya's case was NOT before the high court and NOT before three high court judges. So, another very poorly constructed equivalence. And frankly, the case around 'consent' also affects a very different age group and has a different purpose. One would also expect that the Tavistock has not only supposed to have decades of experience, records and research to draw on to prove their case, but also the funds to employ the very best legal team. So, really not a relevant equivalence.

And it is worth noting that is all you chose to cherry pick to address out of that whole post.

@Sophoclesthefox

It's similar with other gender identities

And yet we spend aeons debating what it is to be a woman and exactly no time at all debating what it is to be a man.

Weird, that.

Your second paragraph doesn’t make any sense. You’re basically saying that when a person says “I don’t have a soul”, they’re saying religion doesn’t exist. This doesn’t follow at all. I don’t believe I have a soul, but I honestly couldn’t give a marmalade sandwich if everyone else believes they do. They are free to, I won’t stop them. I don’t have a gender identity and it’s bonkers that you’re telling me that I do, when your aim in even engaging with this debate is presumably to defend people’s rights to define and name their own gender identity!

You are in a complete logical tangle. And as a PP said, you’re suggesting that women don’t know our own minds, which typically doesn’t go over well in feminism. Believe you have a gender identity all you want, but you can’t compel me, and you certainly can’t do it using shoddy logic.

Even if there were an incontrovertible objective test for gender identity, GC feminists would still not accept that trans women are women or trans men are men, so we can put down objections based on subjectivity as disingenuous. So saying "we can prove that transgender peoples' brains are different," even if it were true, simply won't wash with GC feminists.

Similar arguments raged around homosexuality for a while, before we accepted that gay people are gay and that it's not a mental disorder, regardless of any test or biological basis for sexuality.

So, whatever the scientific consensus, this is a social and cultural argument.

If you could prove that
1:gender identity exists beyond a feeling,
2: that it is objectively measurable somehow and
3; that it affects material things like discrimination, sexual violence ( victim or perpetrator) more than biological sex

then I would be quite happy to reappraise my position on TWAW

Since 1 is in doubt ,2 negative to date and 3 proven negative i I'll stick to my current world understanding

Since

Even if there were an incontrovertible objective test for gender identity, GC feminists would still not accept that trans women are women or trans men are men, so we can put down objections based on subjectivity as disingenuous. So saying "we can prove that transgender peoples' brains are different," even if it were true, simply won't wash with GC feminists

Great, so we should probably agree that it’s a belief, then? Some people have it, some people don’t, and while no one should be discriminated against for having it, no one should be forced into subscribing to the belief either.

Similar arguments raged around homosexuality for a while, before we accepted that gay people are gay and that it's not a mental disorder, regardless of any test or biological basis for sexuality

It really isn’t similar at all. For a multitude of reasons.

It really isn’t similar at all. For a multitude of reasons.

The main reason being that gay people are accommodated through universal rights. Everyone has the right to a same-sex partner. No "gay test" required. No significant infringement on others rights.

There is no simple analogous universal right we can accommodate trans people with that will not interfere with others' rights. What trans people want is no single-sex spaces or arrangements. At all. (But while retaining a split based on self-declared "gender"). That impacts women's rights a HELL of a lot, as no man can be stopped from entering a female space. Not remotely comparable.

"It is quite significant that three high court judges made the decision unanimously..."

How did you get from this statement above ^^

to this => Well, at least that means you agree with the Judge that said that Maya Forstater's views were "not worthy of respect in democratic society"

btw, if my brain was transplanted into a male body I would be me in a male body. The new format of my body would be a bit strange for a while in the same way that any body change feels odd (short haircut, amputation etc) but my brain would work out the new proprioception 'settings' and I'm sure would get the hang of it at some point.

None of this demonstrates in any way the concept of a person born male somehow having a 'female' brain. The brain in a male body is a male brain (and male heart, male spleen etc).

Even if there were an incontrovertible objective test for gender identity, GC feminists would still not accept that trans women are women or trans men are men, so we can put down objections based on subjectivity as disingenuous.

You are right - but I don’t know what point you are trying to make because we have said this over and over again. Sex, and the rights people need because of sex, have nothing to do with identity. I don’t know why this is such a difficult point to grasp.

Similar arguments raged around homosexuality for a while, before we accepted that gay people are gay and that it's not a mental disorder

No, we accepted that people should be able to have romantic and sexual relationships with people of the same sex. Whether they identify as gay is irrelevant.

You seem to view this all through the prism of identity, which marks you out as having a very, very privileged perspective.

Why does gender ID supercede sex though.

It's about bodies not brains.

Nicely put, necessary, I’d lost the will to explain it any further

No, we accepted that people should be able to have romantic and sexual relationships with people of the same sex. Whether they identify as gay is irrelevant

Good point. Presumably on the basis that your assertion is that it’s irrelevant whether you believe you have an identity related to your gender or sexuality or not, dadjoke, you’d be against the concept of MSM (men who have sex with men) as well, and insist that they are, in fact, gay even though they specifically identify as not gay? Should they have charities supporting healthcare for them?

I’m interested to know if it’s just gender identities that are mandatory.

Even if there were an incontrovertible objective test for gender identity, GC feminists would still not accept that trans women are women or trans men are men, so we can put down objections based on subjectivity as disingenuous. So saying "we can prove that transgender peoples' brains are different," even if it were true, simply won't wash with GC feminists.

Well why would having a transgender brain make them a woman? It would make them transgender wouldn’t it, whatever that turns out to mean?

@NecessaryScene1

It really isn’t similar at all. For a multitude of reasons.

The main reason being that gay people are accommodated through universal rights. Everyone has the right to a same-sex partner. No "gay test" required. No significant infringement on others rights.

There is no simple analogous universal right we can accommodate trans people with that will not interfere with others' rights. What trans people want is no single-sex spaces or arrangements. At all. (But while retaining a split based on self-declared "gender"). That impacts women's rights a HELL of a lot, as no man can be stopped from entering a female space. Not remotely comparable.

And yet, a very commonly proposed analogy.

It is merely a distraction. 'It is just like rights for gay people'... 'gay people getting rights didn't make the sky fall down, neither will this' ... 'keep calm, nothing to see here'...

While on the other hand ...

• inclusive and confusing language (imagine if gay marriage meant that the word marriage, or wife, or husband, or spouse could no longer be used because gay people did not want to use those words and they felt excluded when used).
• females losing access to single sex spaces,
• losing female representation on boards/panels/female only roles (gay rights did not mean that you lost female representation, and they even established their own representation) ,
• losing access to fair and safe sport (being gay does NOT mean that someone with benefits from male puberty could compete against females),
• children and young people being put onto life long medical treatments (this did not happen with the passing of gay rights).

This is only a few examples of where there are no conflicts of rights with those of gay people with the rights of women and children, and is conflict of rights with people prioritising their gender identity over the sex based needs of women and girls (due to a millennia of sexist discrimination because of our female sexed bodies).

[** a reminder that female refers to the body type that has developed around the function of producing large gametes, whether this production has ever happened, is happening, or will happen in the future. A disclaimer that seems to be needed in 2021.]

"It is quite significant that three high court judges made the decision unanimously..."

How did you get from this statement above ^^

to this => Well, at least that means you agree with the Judge that said that Maya Forstater's views were "not worthy of respect in democratic society"

Quite a false leap gardenbird isn't it. Another 'all or nothing' statement.

If you want to go deeper, here is Jane Clare Jones.

Gay Rights and Trans Rights -a Compare and Contrast

The key thing to understand about trans rights activism is that, unlike gay rights activism, it is not just a movement seeking to ensure that trans people are not discriminated against. It is, rather, a movement committed to a fundamental reconceptualization of the very idea of what makes someone a man or a woman. In theory, this equally affects both men and women, but in practice, almost all the social pressure is coming from trans women towards the idea of ‘woman’ and the rights of women. And that’s because, when it comes down to it, this whole thing is being driven by male people who want something female people have, and that something, is, in fact, our very existence. Moreover, it turns out – who knew? – that male people have the inclination and social power to exert extreme coercive pressure on female people, and to court the sympathy and support of other males when they do so. (It’s almost as if sex is a thing and that it has something to do with power after all mmmm?).

@NecessaryScene1

It really isn’t similar at all. For a multitude of reasons.

The main reason being that gay people are accommodated through universal rights. Everyone has the right to a same-sex partner. No "gay test" required. No significant infringement on others rights.

There is no simple analogous universal right we can accommodate trans people with that will not interfere with others' rights. What trans people want is no single-sex spaces or arrangements. At all. (But while retaining a split based on self-declared "gender"). That impacts women's rights a HELL of a lot, as no man can be stopped from entering a female space. Not remotely comparable.

Up until recently, religious people argued that marriage equality, or that having gay people share a room in their B&B or that baking a wedding cake impinged on their rights so it's a good analogy.

Rights need to be balanced. Trans gender people as a class are not a threat to non-transgender people as a class, so you can't ban an entire class of people without a very good reason.

Rights need to be balanced. Trans gender people as a class are not a threat to non-transgender people as a class, so you can't ban an entire class of people without a very good reason.
But nobody is talking about banning transgender people. We are saying that sex matters and that claiming it doesn't, harms women more than men.

Rights need to be balanced. - agreed

Trans gender people as a class are not a threat to non-transgender people as a class, so you can't ban an entire class of people without a very good reason.

It is not trans people as a class that we are talking about though. We are talking about male people as a class (surely we’ve been here before? ). In certain circumstances for the purposes of safeguarding and privacy we need (and have the legal right to) exclude all male people from spaces and services.

People born female, however they identify are not excluded from those spaces. Therefore not excluding all trans people, just the male ones.

Trans gender people as a class are not a threat to non-transgender people as a class,

No. Males as a class are a threat to females as a class.

No-one here is proposing treating people differently because they're trans at all.

@NiceGerbil

Why does gender ID supercede sex though.

It's about bodies not brains.

This may surprise you but the brain is a body part.

Rights need to be balanced. Trans gender people as a class are not a threat to non-transgender people as a class, so you can't ban an entire class of people without a very good reason.

Trans gender people aren’t a threat.

An ideology that enforces the concept of gender and campaigns to remove language and policies that others need to protect their rights is very much a threat.

The census is an obvious example of this.

Gender ideologists are not analogous to gay people. They are analogous to the church.

@shizuku Could you please tell me what as a woman I have in common with a tw and how does it help either of us to be in the same category? We have completely different needs.

"Even if there were an incontrovertible objective test for gender identity, GC feminists would still not accept that trans women are women or trans men are men, so we can put down objections based on subjectivity as disingenuous. So saying "we can prove that transgender peoples' brains are different," even if it were true, simply won't wash with GC feminists"

That's true. Women = sex class of female, adult human female, so gender identity is irrelevant.
"Similar arguments raged around homosexuality for a while, before we accepted that gay people are gay and that it's not a mental disorder, regardless of any test or biological basis for sexuality"

That was a civil rights movement to gain equality in law, trans people have full civil rights already. If the gay rights movement had tried to remove my existing rights and dissassociate the meaning of the word woman from sex and reattatch it to gender, thus appropriating the words we use to describe ourselves and organise . I would have had something to say about it I can assure you. The gay rights movement was not ideological, it didny try to destroy binaries or warp understanding of biology.
In a similar vein, by no means all trans people are gender ideologues. Many are GC.

I have been reading about cognitive theory and gender schema theory. Very interesting and a possible explanation for why some people have such a concrete sense of their gender and it being so integral to their personhood.

I do not believe gender steroetypes are innate, as discussed earlier I think humans are physically and behaviourally dimorphic with overlap and the stereotypes take no account of the natural overlap. If you fall in the overlap, you would have sterotypically gendered behaviour and I can totally understand that you would feel innately like the opposite sex. Indeed you may well be more X than quite a significant number of people of the opposite sex. Thus gender can never be anything but a stereotype and gender identity a mental affinity with the stereotype in the form of a schema or mental map of what "being a woman" (or man) is.

Masculine women exist get over it. Feminine men exist get over it. What I just can't get my head round is why people can't just accept this and integrate it into their mental maps, rather than making the categories impermeable and rigid and claiming to be the other thing (or neither)

It also chimes with what my F&F who do have a sense of gender identity say. I have had this debate with my partner and a teenage neighbour and when pushed both say ( along the lines of) they don't literally believe that TWAW/TMAM, they know that gender is socially constructed and they know that fixing gender and then allowing people to cross over and opt out seems strange.
They acknowledge that a world free from gendered expectation would be a better solution, but that the world is what it is, and that because people are oppressed by gender, it is not realistic, so gender ideology is a satisfactory compromise or perhaps a consolation prize when the goal of universal acceptance with complete freedom of self expression is not achievable.

I mainly think that women are not oppressed because of their "gender identity or gender" but because of their sex.

y that measure GC folk are extremely idealistic. We expect more of humans and society, we are looking for the utopia of men and women, masculinity and femininity in any combination to be accepted and acceptable. With the only exception being that safeguards and language remain. Gender ideology and the concept of a fixed innate gender identity seperate from sex is also sold as freeing people from the confines of sex expectations, but in reality gender itself is the thing that confines.

Raising a gender-aschematic child in the midst of a gender-schematic society’ (Bem, 1983) talks about trying to remove the influence of gender schemas altogether. This is also bollocks in my opinion since that denies the fact that a slight majority of each sex will conform to steroetypes and have those preferences and behaviours.

Surely the solution is to make sure the schemas are not reinforced or forced on anyone. Seperating the concepts of sex and gender and acknowledging that gender is socially constructed and flexible already does this and we seemed to be moving forward (slowly)

If you then undermine sex and make it about gender (for the sake of a few people with a 10 ton concrete mega schema) i.e. gender identity, we go backwards.