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

A 'sense' is something that takes in information, processes it, and then produces a perception as output. So our sense of smell takes in chemicals from the air, that is processed in the brain, and the output is the sensation and perception of aromas and flavours. The sense of 'impending doom' takes in data from the body, in particular high co2 levels, and generates a perception of panic.So if gender identity is a fully fledged sense, what data is it taking in? And what perception is it generating as an output? And why do we have this innate (so I imagine by innate it's meant that it is not cultural or learned) sense of our own sex in the first place? What is the evolutionary value of such a sense?

Also, here's the big problem. If I have a sense I should be able to 'tune in' and perceive the information from this sense. So right now I can introspectively access what my sense of touch is telling me, by directing my attention inward to the perception from that sense. But when I introspect I can't detect any sense of what my sex is. Now, I KNOW that my sex is female, much in the same way that I know my height is 5 foot 3 , and my hair is brown, and my skin is white. I wouldn't say that I have a 'skin colour' sense, or a 'hair colour' sense, or an 'eye colour sense'. That is a conceptual confusion. Rather, I use my other senses (hearing, touch, sight) to gather information and from that information I learn facts about myself - I am female and I know this because I can see it, others have told me etc.

To me, from the inside, it just doesn't seem like I have an internal sense constantly pumping out perceptions along the lines of 'your sex is female'. Rather, I just happen to know and believe I am female as a fact based on other data.But this is a problem, because usually when you posit an innate biological sense it is easy to tell if one has it or does not. People who lack senses of smell are acutely aware of this, and so are people who lack sight, or a sense of pain. It appears to me that I lack an internal 'sense' of my own gender, and I can't even imagine what such a thing would be like. so does this mean I am 'gender' blind?

@CardinalLolzy

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?

Logic isn't allowed Cardinal!

I am listening. I just don't agree.

This is never going to be something that everyone agrees with. The answer is the same tolerance necessary for different religions to live alongside each other.

And when you look at the multiple threads now running on this general theme:

you have gender critical posters who have a wider view that accepts different people believe different things, identify in different ways, define themselves in different ways and it's possible to have multiple solutions to allow everyone to live by their needs. People should be free to choose their own without imposing their beliefs on others.

and the view that there is only one truth, everyone should conform to it, they are deluded and wrong for not believing it, and .... what? There's no room for other views and beliefs? Those who don't conform should not be tolerated?

I know which pov looks kinder, more tolerant, more diverse and inclusive.

'identities' are all stories that we tell ourselves about ourselves -- and that sometimes we allow other people to tell about us.

Sometimes these are contradictory. Think of 'social identity' or 'class identity', which are outward forms of narrative; compared to 'personal identity' or 'gender identity', which are inward ones. We accept that often people's outward and inward selves might conflict.

Compare 'national identity'. We're all quite happy to acknowledge that this is a narrative that we use to tell a certain kind of story about how we belong, that includes our history, our politics and our landscape. We'd laugh these days if someone said Italians are all born passionate or the English born stoic. 'National character' is a kind of a fiction made up of history and self-image - we all know that. And we are comfortable, too, with the idea that some 'identities' often the social ones might conflict (for British people who are also from a different racial heritage; or for people who move from one class or region to another).

The inward kinds of 'identities' are exactly the same; only they are often stories we piece together and weave about ourselves instead of stories others tell about us and to us collectively. There have been lots of disciplines in the past which seek to understand and interpret the activity of what used to be called 'self-fashioning' -- from theology to psychoanalysis to literary criticism. These days, such 'narrative' disciplines are out of fashion; so the shibboleth of 'identity' has taken root as an immutable thing, and young people in particular have forgotten that selves and stories are intermingled, and instead have come to believe in stories as reality ( a la fake news).

Let's hope this shifts again some time soon.

If brains are sexed (or a small part of the brain is sexed with a gender identity) then the most it could ever be is a secondary sexual characteristic. Our sex is determined by our primary sexual characteristics, ie our reproductive class. People of each sex sometimes have secondary sexual characteristics of the opposite sex.

There is a bimodal distribution of some character traits, ie they are more typical of one sex than the other, but both sexes have them. No one knows if this is nature or nurture that some traits are more commonly found in one sex than the other. Personally I think it is likely to both. It is clear though that there aren’t traits that are exclusive to one sex.

Sophie Scott does an excellent talk about brain sex. vimeo.com/414833798

Gender identity is a really useful concept to help people with gender dysphoria express how they feel.

@MichelleofzeResistance

And when you look at the multiple threads now running on this general theme:

you have gender critical posters who have a wider view that accepts different people believe different things, identify in different ways, define themselves in different ways and it's possible to have multiple solutions to allow everyone to live by their needs. People should be free to choose their own without imposing their beliefs on others.

and the view that there is only one truth, everyone should conform to it, they are deluded and wrong for not believing it, and .... what? There's no room for other views and beliefs? Those who don't conform should not be tolerated?

I know which pov looks kinder, more tolerant, more diverse and inclusive.

Well, but there is only one truth in this sense: if I say there is no such thing as gender identity and you say there is such a thing, only one of us is telling the truth.

(The other might think they are telling the truth. They might strongly believe they were telling the truth. But strong belief, sadly, does not guarantee truth.)

It is not inconsistent to allow there is only one truth at the same time as making room for others' views and beliefs. Nor is it inconsistent with the 'one truth' idea to uphold freedom to choose and denigrate the imposition of beliefs on others.

In fact it is conducive to finding the truth that we make room for others' beliefs and so on. We should always accept the possibility we are wrong.

Kindness, tolerance, diversity and inclusivity are unlikely to survive denial of truth.

[So I assert, anyway. Argument to this conclusion is probably too lengthy for now. But, well, Orwell's 1984 was about this. And Koestler's Darkness at Noon. And lots of others. If it does not seem obvious, have a think about it. Very much a live issue these days, and not just re trans concerns.]

@MichelleofzeResistance

And when you look at the multiple threads now running on this general theme:

you have gender critical posters who have a wider view that accepts different people believe different things, identify in different ways, define themselves in different ways and it's possible to have multiple solutions to allow everyone to live by their needs. People should be free to choose their own without imposing their beliefs on others.

and the view that there is only one truth, everyone should conform to it, they are deluded and wrong for not believing it, and .... what? There's no room for other views and beliefs? Those who don't conform should not be tolerated?

I know which pov looks kinder, more tolerant, more diverse and inclusive.

But religious people don’t insist upon their beliefs being made law here do they? And in the countries that do - are they something to aspire to?

Orwell is essential reading for our current times, 1984 and Animal Farm especially but all of his work is worth reading. I also find Hannah Arendt “The Origins of Totalitarianism” instructive. I will look out for “Darkness at Noon”. We must learn from the past and from what has happened/is happening in other places. Don’t ever think it couldn’t happen here or it couldn’t happen now. We must ever be vigilant.

PaleBlueMoonlight:
Gender identity is a really useful concept to help people with gender dysphoria express how they feel .

That may well be true. It does not follow that there is such a thing as gender identity, though, does it? (Not that I read you as taking a stand on this.)

The concept of a big balloon that you blow up with all your troubles in and allow to float away is a useful concept for junior school pupils to express how they feel. (Or so the teachers at my grandchildren's school think; I think it perhaps still moot.) Of course there is no such thing as that balloon.

Fictions are useful. Some people talk of fictional existence in such cases.

It would not be sensible to base policy on fictional existence in the case to hand, though.

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).

No, we really can't Shizuku.

Because cloacal exstrophy is a serious medical condition in which - amongst other things - the external genitals of the child do not form properly. As the definition of a DSD (differences in sex development) is a congenital malformation of the child's chromosomal, gonadal or anatomical sex, and in these children the formation of external genitals is atypical in both sexes, this condition is rightly classified as a DSD.

So what you have cited here is a study that researches how children with a DSD understand themselves as either male or female based on their understanding of their own anatomy. That's nothing to do with the transgender identity of a perfectly healthy person with no congenital malformations of their sex. (And indeed, the authors state they are studying the formation of a sexual identity in male children who were raised female after being operated on as neonates to create a vulva.)

As some of these children considered themselves female, some male and some were undecided, the study obviously cannot tell us anything conclusive about gender identity, because that wasn't studied, and it can only suggest a few things about the psychosexual development of children with one specific DSD whose sex has been reassigned shortly after birth.

Even if the criteria for different gender identities could be agreed on, what possible reason could there be for using that as a means to categorise competitors in sport? Why would someone's inner innate essence be important?

Well, here is Mermaids’ comprehensive and direct answer as to what ‘gender’ means.

@Cloudyz7

Even if the criteria for different gender identities could be agreed on, what possible reason could there be for using that as a means to categorise competitors in sport? Why would someone's inner innate essence be important?

Feels before reals innit. You have to put someone else’s inner sparkly essence before your own safety or you’re not # bekind

@9toenails

PaleBlueMoonlight: Gender identity is a really useful concept to help people with gender dysphoria express how they feel .

That may well be true. It does not follow that there is such a thing as gender identity, though, does it? (Not that I read you as taking a stand on this.)

The concept of a big balloon that you blow up with all your troubles in and allow to float away is a useful concept for junior school pupils to express how they feel. (Or so the teachers at my grandchildren's school think; I think it perhaps still moot.) Of course there is no such thing as that balloon.

Fictions are useful. Some people talk of fictional existence in such cases.

It would not be sensible to base policy on fictional existence in the case to hand, though.

Agree.

@9toenails

PaleBlueMoonlight: Gender identity is a really useful concept to help people with gender dysphoria express how they feel .

That may well be true. It does not follow that there is such a thing as gender identity, though, does it? (Not that I read you as taking a stand on this.)

The concept of a big balloon that you blow up with all your troubles in and allow to float away is a useful concept for junior school pupils to express how they feel. (Or so the teachers at my grandchildren's school think; I think it perhaps still moot.) Of course there is no such thing as that balloon.

Fictions are useful. Some people talk of fictional existence in such cases.

It would not be sensible to base policy on fictional existence in the case to hand, though.

This.

It’s the equivalent of getting everyone else to say they ‘see’ the phantom balloon and pretend to ingest its helium.

Barracker very clear and helpful, thank you. And I agree.

The other logical error that is made by TRA is that they are campaigning for trans rights and for the right of trans people not to be discriminated against, but also for their right to be women. I agree with their right not to be discriminated against. In fact I would be very happy to see changes to legislation that enshrined their right to equal treatment, prevented hate speech against them and ensured their basic rights to care, jobs, welfare, health etc based only and exclusively upon their trans identity,....all good. But how is it that they want to take up two identities simultaneously which contradict because both are so called gender identities. How can you argue for your right to be both trans and be a woman? and if a person considers their identity "woman" why would I consider them "trans"? If they are trans they can't also be a woman, and I am not obliged to respect it. If we take their view that two separate gender identities exist under the term woman, trans and cis then the very identity they claim to inhabit has lost all meaningful definition for them. It could then be said that a woman is any a gender relating to any sex, based upon any definition we wish to ascribe to it, or worse for them doesn't exist. We see this with our very own eyes when activists with full beards, wear a dress and refer to themselves as women. "I'm warping gender" excellent go ahead......but be aware that when you have finished you will have annihilated the very thing you sought to be!

The concept, term, definition and category "woman" no longer exists, empty of all and any content. At this point I am quite happy to up sticks and let them have it!

But the other thing that I can't help but feel irritated by is this feeling that we ourselves opened pandoras box and can't get the lid back on. Too much emphasis has been given to gender in feminist discourse for far too long. gender is performative, gender doesn't exist in any concrete way, gender is ascribed, gender is.....

For me, I like the really simple. Woman is an adult female. Much more of this mind warping and I'm apt to just roll over and let them have it......."there be a woman, I'm not, I'm female" Except I notice they are now turning their attention to warping the concrete facts on biological sex. But, erm, if the term women no longer relates to biological sex why are they now wanting to appropriate our biology with their weird fantasies around bleeding and breastfeeding? Because they have created the conditions in which the category and definition woman is no longer contingent upon biological sex they will find that a dead end too. They are literally eating their own selves at this point by annihilating the thing they most want to be.

Can anyone point me in the direction of trans men who are quite as aggressively pushing their cause as trans women?

Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth

Mmm. So the 14 males told they were females, had no vaginas. Just surgically created vulvas.

Did no one interpreting this study think that girls have baths together and notice things like vaginas? And notice that when their friends reached puberty and developed breasts, they did not and the same with periods.

Maybe I missed it, but this study seemed to miss some pretty basic childhood behaviour. Of course these children realised something was amiss, if not early on, certainly by 9 or 10. And most definitely by the time no breast development and period spotting started.

And again, here is all that gender stereotype trope about toys. Let toys be toys. What a sad world we live in where we are judged on the toys we play with in such a way.

My mother would have noted that mostly I would have been considered a boy. Toy cars, my trike, colouring books (they were generic those days), blocks and cardboard box cubby houses were my go to toys. From about 6 maybe I had a couple of dolls, but by then I also got the pass me down toys from my brother and they were more fun. Oh and mud pies. Lots of them.

This perpetuating of toy stereotypes is bonkers and harmful.

Shizuku I have just had a read of your link to the study Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth, thank you.

I have some issues with this. If you are trying to say that male neonates are male, I agree. That is all this study proves. It proves that male neonates can be assigned a different legal sex and raised as a different gender but ultimately their biology dictates their sexual and corresponding gender. These males identified as male and wanted to live as men. It only confirms that in this case their sex and their gender is aligned, because they have XY chromosomes, irrespective of surgery.

It doesn't explain how male neonates raised as boys come to identify as girls. Am I missing something really obvious here? It doesn't in anyway prove that gender dysphoria is linked to any biological cause.

Wondermule Well hold on a minute - that's weird.
That Mermaids text says "If you [sic] gender identity matches the one you were given at birth that's called "cisgender"."

But Shizuku said this happens if your gender identity matches the sex you were assigned at birth.

So... sex and gender identity are the same thing? Or is either Mermaids or Shizuku incorrect?
Is it sex or gender identity that's assigned at birth? How do we find out?

(In the same text Mermaids also refers to 'gender' being given at birth, implying 'gender' and 'gender identity' are interchangeable)

Also 'for some people, looks can be deceiving' - what on earth does that mean? Which people have bodies which deceive? Who is being deceived about what, and why? Is it some sort of optical illusion - why the focus on the 'look' of the body?

Or is either Mermaids or Shizuku incorrect?

doublethink
/ˈdʌb(ə)lθɪŋk/
noun
the acceptance of contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination.

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.

Yes. Bookmarking thread to read tomorrow.

[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]
From Shizuku's earlier link, it seems to suggest that gender identity is all about stereotypes, and then throws in a line about gender identity being an inner sense - it doesn't seem to be internally consistent:

"How do children typically express their gender identity?
In addition to their choices of toys, games, and sports, children typically express their gender identity in the following ways:

Clothing or hairstyle

Preferred name or nickname

Social behavior that reflects varying degrees of aggression, dominance, dependency, and gentleness.

Manner and style of behavior and physical gestures and other nonverbal actions identified as masculine or feminine.

Social relationships, including the gender of friends, and the people he or she decides to imitate.

While a child's gender-specific behavior (i.e. gender expression) at any time seems to be influenced by exposure to stereotypes and their identification with the people in their lives, the internal sense of being a girl, boy, in between or something else (i.e. gender identity) cannot be changed."

Doesn't this seem to be confusing the terms gender identity and gender expression? And saying they can be influenced by external things, but also saying the can't be changed? Did anyone else understand this?

From one of Shizuku's references:
"... While a child's gender-specific behavior (i.e. gender expression) at any time seems to be influenced by exposure to stereotypes and their identification with the people in their lives, the internal sense of being a girl, boy, in between or something else (i.e. gender identity) cannot be changed."

StellaAndCrow about this:
Doesn't this seem to be confusing the terms gender identity and gender expression? And saying they can be influenced by external things, but also saying the can't be changed? Did anyone else understand this?

It is not really coherent. But one thing about it is clear. No evidence is offered for the existence of "the internal sense of being a girl, boy, in between or something else". The existence of "gender identity" is simply assumed .

In fact, as many have argued, there is no such thing as gender identity. The initial assumption on which so much is based turns out to be false.

There is a classical logical principle called 'ex falso quodlibet' (sometimes known as the 'explosion principle'). Roughly speaking, this states that if you begin with something false, you can deduce anything you like. Application of this principle accounts for much of what Skikuzu posts on this, and other, threads; StellaAndCrow has highlighted another example here. (Thanks!)

Ex falso quodlibet also goes a long way towards explaining the nonsense so often offered in 'explanation' of other trans dogma. My thought has been that it is worthwhile to point out the false basis of foundational premises of such dogma. Simple and obvious enough -- which is why 'no debate' and spurious accusations of 'phobia' gained such currency, I suppose.