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 broad scientific consensus is that it is biological in origin.

Could you provide evidence of this broad consensus?

The only evidence I've seen is a position piece from a trade body that relies on a meta study, that bases this biological evidence primarily on DSD individuals
With a suggestion that there may be some evidence in brain imaging but the study cautions the sample size is too small and no conclusions can be drawn
(With multiple other studies showing that when results are weighted for size no discernible difference can be seen)

Not even close to a broad consensus

@Shizuku what point are you trying to make with that link?

@Barracker

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'

Excellent post. You have an excellent way with words.

I think it would be helpful if genderism were recognised as a religion.

People should be free to believe in it so long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else.

Totally detach it from real world definitions of male/female, man/woman, boy/girl.

Don't let anyone be mistreated because they declare themselves to be in "girl mode" but equally never let a man's declaration of girl mode mean he is let into women's prisons, shortlists, etc.

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).

Have you actually read the paper?
It really doesn't seem to say what you think it does

Would you mind pointing out the part that provides evidence for a biological component of gender identity and perhaps explain it?

[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]
OK. '... a person's own innate sense of what sex they are,' you say.

I say there is no such innate sense. Nor is there any broad scientific consensus under any reasonable reading of that phrase.

How do we decide which of us is right?

According to Alex Byrne, whom I referenced above, ' No one has yet found a way of detecting its presence ...'

There is the challenge, if you like. Have you a test for the presence of this innate sense I claim does not exist? If not, and you wish to retain scientific credibility, you should admit (at least pro tem, pending other developments) you have no reason to accept there is any such thing.

-- The article you referenced begs the question, of course. (I wonder if you know what that means?) But also it makes no mention of the innateness you mention. I checked. Do you read the stuff you post references to?

@Shizuku

There aren't words
That paper uncritically cites John Money and his work on David Reimer in it's 3rd citation
Bit of a shaky start no matter what it says

@Barracker

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"

But we are dealing with a dogma that rejects this logic as a hegemonistic, marginalising, disempowering narrative. In terms of different ways of knowing, the black swan is not a swan.

It becomes impossible to argue without commonly accepted rules. Argument becomes like Lewis Carroll's map in the "hunting of the snark". There's nothing there. Hence the refusal to fetishise debate.

But we have to keep arguing, or the dogma just gets more and more traction.

@Barracker

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'

Thanks Barracker. I think that is more or less correct.

@Barracker
Damn. I quoted the wrong bit of your excellent post. But you know what I mean.

[quote JustSpeculation]@Barracker

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"

But we are dealing with a dogma that rejects this logic as a hegemonistic, marginalising, disempowering narrative. In terms of different ways of knowing, the black swan is not a swan.

It becomes impossible to argue without commonly accepted rules. Argument becomes like Lewis Carroll's map in the "hunting of the snark". There's nothing there. Hence the refusal to fetishise debate.

But we have to keep arguing, or the dogma just gets more and more traction.[/quote]
Exactly. No debate. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't. Their argument fails when any simple logic is applied.

This opinion may be unpopular, but I believe that rather than focusing on "gender identity" which implies everyone possesses one, we should go back to considering transitioning as what it is intended to be: medical treatment for gender dysphoria. I define gender dysphoria as a very specific type of body dysmorphia related to ones sex characteristics, often coupled with intense social distress regarding one's sex. I feel like lately the focus has shifted away from the act of treating a person and improving their life and instead has moved to a vague concept of "identity," which is both hard to define (everyone has their own definitions) and hard to diagnose accurately when seeking treatment.

@Shizuku

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."

The majority have expressed a male gender identity .

Nope. Sorry Shizuku. Begs the question.

Whatever they did, it was not expressing a male gender identity. We know that because there is no such thing as male gender identity. And we know that because there is no such thing as gender identity.

Postulate all you like. Remember ' theft over honest toil '?

@Wondermule

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

This

And thank you Barracker for your clear and logical explanation!

Gender ideology is a belief and believers of any religion, philosophy or political theory should have their human rights respected however we must have protections and boundaries that allow everyone freedom of belief and association, and freedom of speech. In a democratic society where there are many different beliefs public institutions must be based on incontrovertible facts upon which the majority can agree and not on a minority belief system. The majority in the UK understand sex to be a fact, measurable, unchangable and relevant medically and socially.

@kaineus

This opinion may be unpopular, but I believe that rather than focusing on "gender identity" which implies everyone possesses one, we should go back to considering transitioning as what it is intended to be: medical treatment for gender dysphoria. I define gender dysphoria as a very specific type of body dysmorphia related to ones sex characteristics, often coupled with intense social distress regarding one's sex. I feel like lately the focus has shifted away from the act of treating a person and improving their life and instead has moved to a vague concept of "identity," which is both hard to define (everyone has their own definitions) and hard to diagnose accurately when seeking treatment.

I think most on 'this side' of the debate would agree.

I have no issue with people transitioning if it is to aid dysphoria after other treatments haven't worked. I can totally understand why it is used as a treatment.

What I am concerned about is the massive changes that have occurred in the few years in regards to trans becoming an identity that one can just declare on a whim, and what leads from this change in view.

@Shizuku

"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."

77% of all American adults believe in angels, see angels poll

Who should we listen to?

77% of all American adults believe in angels

I'm afraid that statistic is definitely going to feature in my future posts. Thanks.

@GCITC

Exactly. No debate. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't. Their argument fails when any simple logic is applied.

But it's even more than that. The position is that logic loads the dice against them at the start, as it's a hostile narrative which has been developed to oppress others. They make a virtue of not debating in order to maintain the integrity of their position.

It's quite horrible. really, because it's all about power and winning.

@Barracker, fabulous post - the clearest exposition of the nature of the faulty logic that I've read.

I'm just going to drop in a little gem of a direct quote from the NEJM paper that Shizuku cited, which studied a small number of genetically-male children who underwent SRS in the neonatal period for a severe developmental anomaly:

"...only one subject — who later adopted a male identity — stated a very strong interest in marriage, with interest in marriage being more typical of female responses in childhood. All 16 subjects denied ever having had fantasies about weddings."

This was the researchers' mindset on gender identity. Wedding fantasies = female.

@kaineus

This opinion may be unpopular, but I believe that rather than focusing on "gender identity" which implies everyone possesses one, we should go back to considering transitioning as what it is intended to be: medical treatment for gender dysphoria. I define gender dysphoria as a very specific type of body dysmorphia related to ones sex characteristics, often coupled with intense social distress regarding one's sex. I feel like lately the focus has shifted away from the act of treating a person and improving their life and instead has moved to a vague concept of "identity," which is both hard to define (everyone has their own definitions) and hard to diagnose accurately when seeking treatment.

'Unpopular does not imply 'wrong', I note. Thank you for the response.

My reason for focusing here on 'gender identity' was very much its use as foundational in an ideology which, as you say, focuses on vague concepts of 'identity' to the detriment of proper treatment.

Far from 'everyone possesses one' (a gender identity),in fact no-one does. Once we accept that we can go back to considerations of appropriate treatment as you describe.

@JellySlice

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.

Exactly this.

No one should be forced to participate in religious rituals in which they don’t believe particularly in order to access education, healthcare, employment or any other aspect of public life. These institutions are more properly diverse and inclusive when they are based in secular values of common decency to fellow citizens and thoroughly researched, evidence based, best practices in safeguarding, medicine and education.

[quote Awiltu]@Barracker, fabulous post - the clearest exposition of the nature of the faulty logic that I've read.

I'm just going to drop in a little gem of a direct quote from the NEJM paper that Shizuku cited, which studied a small number of genetically-male children who underwent SRS in the neonatal period for a severe developmental anomaly:

"...only one subject — who later adopted a male identity — stated a very strong interest in marriage, with interest in marriage being more typical of female responses in childhood. All 16 subjects denied ever having had fantasies about weddings."

This was the researchers' mindset on gender identity. Wedding fantasies = female.[/quote]
So the study was basing gender identity on gendered stereotypes?

How transphobic!

GCITC, yes and 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.

What possible biological reason could there be for humans to have an innate sense of what sex they are? We all know what sex we are. How we then express ourselves on the basis of our sex is all down to external influences.

From the instant we are born we're subjected to a constant barrage of subtle and not so subtle messages as to how those of our sex and the opposite sex should dress and behave etc. We then either consciously or sub-consciously choose which of those 'stereotypes' to adopt or reject.

a person's own innate sense of what sex they are

So, logically, there must be the same number of sexes as there are genders? What are they?