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?

Some excellent posts on this thread! I’m assuming that most of the posters are women? A thread to save and savour.

@Soontobe60

Some excellent posts on this thread! I’m assuming that most of the posters are women? A thread to save and savour.

I am sure most of the posters are women. At least one is a man, though.

@stackthecats

'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.

Gosh. Great post. I always think of identities as ego identification with desirable aspects of ourselves. Something to discourage/ try to rise above. That we should connect with the universal human aspects of ourselves and others. I think that for people with an unstable sense of self that these self narratives replace that.

@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."

Some people think something might be biological. 67,000 people might or might not have read a paper, or might be too polite to comment.

Meanwhile every single human being on the planet was born from a woman, who whether or not she wanted to become pregnant or had the capacity to parent, risked her health and life.

There are still parts of the world where women cannot access education or vote simply because of gendered expectations of sex.

The shear amount of privilege involved in suggesting that something that ‘might be biological’ is relevant to all this is breathtaking, nevermind the fact that none of it makes sense if you also accept the concept of being non binary.

The starting point of this thread is an interesting one where I think a rephrasing of the question would be helpful.

Is there any such thing as gender identity?

Let's take an equivalent from religion

Is there any such thing as a soul that lives on after the body dies?

Can you imagine the arguments and evidence that would come out? It isn't a particularly useful question except to reveal that there is no consensus on it and no way to prove it definitively one way or the other.

Do people truly believe in souls that live on after the body dies?
All 3 questions can be easily answered with little controversy.

Should people be allowed to in souls?
In the UK the answer would be yes to all of those. In theocracies the answer could be no to some of those.

Should personal belief in override laws of the land?
Usually not. In some countries the laws are specifically written to reflect the religion. In some countries a religious panel is the supreme court that can overturn laws. Not in the UK.

Where personal belief in leads someone to follow a particular creed/set of rules should they be allowed to follow those rules?
Usually yes, but in some countries the exact religion is mandated in law, in some places a change from your family religion at birth is not allowed or never accepted.

Where personal belief in leads someone to follow a particular creed/set of rules should they be allowed to demand other people follow those rules?
In some countries yes definitely. In the UK, rarely.

"Where personal belief in leads someone to follow a particular creed/set of rules should their belief be an exemption from laws that are in conflict?"

In the UK we have been tackling these questions of religion for centuries. We abandoned the Bloody Mary and Cromwell approaches some time ago thankfully.

We have abandoned some laws put in place due to religious thought but not others (homosexuality now legal, Sunday opening still limited).

Court cases have shown that religious belief is not a free pass to break laws but sometimes we see that a rule is unreasonable and needs changing, examples being things like, refusing to bake a cake for someone, the wearing of religious symbols at work, doctors refusing to discuss contraception or abortion, religious schools that do not meet UK educational standards, being allowed to opt out of religious services at school, circumcision.

It is difficult. It needs debate. We know it is is hard when it is religious soul and religious creed.

Swap gender identity / gendered soul in there and the questions start to become tractable.

In my opinion the creation of the legal fiction of sex change bolloxed up our usual sensible hard won British methods of religious tolerance. The law said "Thou shalt act like you believe in X, except when that's a really bad idea"

Believers interpreted this as "Thou shalt act like you believe in X" forgetting the exceptions. Then their highly effective lobby groups managed to convince many people that the law had no exceptions built in.

Then an even more devout group of believers said the law means "X is true" and anyone not behaving accordingly is wrong / a baddie.

Turn it back into being a religious belief separate from material reality and the laws of our land and hey presto we can make decent law in the way we've been doing for literally centuries in the UK.

I think the recognition of gender identity as a religious belief and TWAW-TMAM-NBAV as one associated religious creed makes things clearer.

I also think it helps us to understand why religious countries like America and Ireland are behaving so differently from secular countries like the UK and Sweden.

Also to understand why so many Americans who come on here talking about gender identity seem so alien to us. They are using arguments for benign theocratic political systems like theirs not ours.

"Thou shalt act like you believe in X, except when that's a really bad idea"

One problem is that at the time this law was made ‘believing in X’ was quantifiable in some circumstances e.g. marriage.

Now it is not possible to quantify what difference X should make, except re: the single sex exemptions.

Also, the law was written to protect privacy around sex (in some but not all circumstances), not to affirm a belief in gender identity.

Exactly right 30PercentRecycled

This is a sensible way forward, protect believers, protect children from proselytising and from physical harm, protect the right to family life, protect the majority who believe differently. Scrap the legal fiction.

Put gender identity in the same category as religious belief or ethical veganism, no one may be discriminated against because of it but no one should be forced to declare it true or participate in it, change their dietary habits or speech etc.

Society must function for the majority and that means we all make compromises. There are many different beliefs in the UK. We don’t feel that we are “phobic” or bigoted against any of them by protecting freedom of belief but not sharing those beliefs nor making laws based on them.

@DaisiesandButtercups

Exactly right 30PercentRecycled

This is a sensible way forward, protect believers, protect children from proselytising and from physical harm, protect the right to family life, protect the majority who believe differently. Scrap the legal fiction.

Put gender identity in the same category as religious belief or ethical veganism, no one may be discriminated against because of it but no one should be forced to declare it true or participate in it, change their dietary habits or speech etc.

Society must function for the majority and that means we all make compromises. There are many different beliefs in the UK. We don’t feel that we are “phobic” or bigoted against any of them by protecting freedom of belief but not sharing those beliefs nor making laws based on them.

I think that is a great idea, actually. I’m sure we can agree we are not embroiled in this argument because we are intolerant of others’ beliefs, only because we are concerned about the rights of women being eroded by essentially a non-tangible belief like any other.

Some people are unable to feel pain (congenital analgesia).

If you told someone with congenital analgesia that you were in pain and they said they would only give you pain killers if you could prove it, how would you prove it?

@Shizuku

Some people are unable to feel pain (congenital analgesia).

If you told someone with congenital analgesia that you were in pain and they said they would only give you pain killers if you could prove it, how would you prove it?

But there is a pathology to pain - it has a biological basis. And if it is psychological then painkillers won’t work will they?

@Shizuku

Some people are unable to feel pain (congenital analgesia).

If you told someone with congenital analgesia that you were in pain and they said they would only give you pain killers if you could prove it, how would you prove it?

You would have to take into account the side effects of the medication. If they caused infertility they might not be licensed, and certainly not for children.

It would be better protection for people who believe in gender identity.

Right now the pressure to force belief on others is at risk of creating a backlash against the belief.

Revert to live and let live religious tolerance would help trans people be accepted and tolerated.

Obviously the extremists won't like it because it means nobody else is forced to accept that TW are literally adult human females for all purposes.

I believe that the UK is uniquely placed to drive a reformation of global gender law politics.

We have the history of religious wars at home, crusades abroad, martyrs and burnings that has evolved into a tolerant society with healthy scepticism.

We have a legal system held up as the gold standard worldwide.

We have the NHS which mostly neuters attempts to politicise medicine.

We are the first country to have handled a Keira Bell type case sensibly.

We are bloody minded and will just blimming well go and do our own thing.

Other countries copy us.

We could make genderism a protected religious belief, drop legal fictions and the mangled language. We could fairly rapidly set up a system that others will want to adopt and will be seen as just by all except the most rabid extremists on all sides.

Once again 30PercentRecycled I am in agreement with all that you say here. A live and let live approach, dropping legal fictions, mangled language, protecting women and children, and relieving believers of the frustrations and potential backlash of attempting to force belief or pretence of belief on all of us.

Revert to live and let live religious tolerance would help trans people be accepted and tolerated.

I think it’s important that equality law protects people who suffer from gender dysphoria and people who are gender non conforming, regardless of whether they believe in a gendered soul. Unfortunately the gendered soul crowd have completely dominated all conversation.

@Shizuku

Some people are unable to feel pain (congenital analgesia).

If you told someone with congenital analgesia that you were in pain and they said they would only give you pain killers if you could prove it, how would you prove it?

That analogy ony works if people here are denying that gender dysohoria exists.

Whereas I'm pretty sure everyone on FWR accepts that gender dysphoria exists, they just disagree with the currently mainstream view on what the underlying cause is and with the belief that trans people are literally the sex they identify with.

@merrymouse

Revert to live and let live religious tolerance would help trans people be accepted and tolerated.

I think it’s important that equality law protects people who suffer from gender dysphoria and people who are gender non conforming, regardless of whether they believe in a gendered soul. Unfortunately the gendered soul crowd have completely dominated all conversation.

The thing is, it already does.

We already live in a secular society that guarantees civil rights and ensures everyones human rights are secure, ,that protects freedom of speech and expression. Including health care that is free from cradle to grave and a welfare safety net.

Subject to the same safeguards, cost benefit analysis and turn taking that everyone is subject to, we even fund full transition surgery on the NHS if it is necessary to prevent dysphoria.

We have robust employment laws, descrimination laws and equality laws. There is literally nothing, that trans people can't do except for access single sex spaces and control the way other people perceive them.

Formalising the fact that gender ideology is a belief and should be considered as exempt from unduly influencing political process (by including it in law on secularism) might help protect the rest of us though.

@Shizuku

Some people are unable to feel pain (congenital analgesia).

If you told someone with congenital analgesia that you were in pain and they said they would only give you pain killers if you could prove it, how would you prove it?

When people are in psychological pain, such as through stress or bereavement, you don’t give them pain killers. Even some people with long term idiopathic pain are not automatically given them. They may get antidepressants or talking therapies or both.

We have robust employment laws, descrimination laws and equality laws. There is literally nothing, that trans people can't do except for access single sex spaces and control the way other people perceive them.

Important to mention too: if it was a matter of requiring additional mixed sex/gendered spaces as alternatives to single sex provisions to permit people to live according to their beliefs, this seems an eminently reasonable proposition. Who would object to this?

But it is not a position of tolerant equality being sought: it is in effect the repetition of the historic 'thou shalt have no other God but me'. It is a requirement that no one be allowed to retain single sex spaces, that the impact upon those who have other beliefs and cultures and needs be put aside and ignored and access to some denied completely.

How is this tolerant or even ethical in a modern society?

I have not read the whole thread so I apologise if this has already been mentioned.

Gender identity is claimed to be an innate essence - something that doesn't change. It is apparently stronger than biology or genetics as its proponents claim a person's sex is 'assigned' at birth. In other words, they are trying to imply a person's sex isn't innate and real, but 'assigned' - an arbitrary construction; while this invisible gender identity is more real and innate and exists independently of a person's sexed body. Sort of like a soul if you will. The gender soul is more real than the material flesh of the body and its connection to the mind.

A person's gender identity is so real and so strong that some males claim they have always been a woman. Any attempts to examine or interrogate a person's self-confessed gender identity is portrayed as conversion therapy.

It is viewed as ethically wrong to question or attempt to change an innate aspect of a person. Like sexual orientation. Fair enough.

Sexual orientation is considered to be innate although there is still debate over how this actually comes to be and whether some people tend to be more flexible than others in their sexual attraction. (I don't mean bisexuals - I'm referring to people who were adamant they were straight/gay and then met someone who changed their mind)
Nevertheless it is fairly obvious to the vast majority of people that you cannot change a person's sexual orientation. They can suppress it or pretend to be something they are not or ignore it, but eventually, one way or another, there is no denying something so intrinsically part of a person's psyche.

Can we ever forget something that is an intrinsic part of us?

Dementia is a horrible condition and the nature of the issues affecting the brain mean people can forget all sorts of things as it progresses - from spouses and children to basic activities like cooking and grooming oneself properly. More recent memories and skills seem to be more likely to be lost first.

Has anyone with dementia forgotten their sexual orientation?
I haven't really come across anything like that, but I'm happy to hear from others who are more knowledgeable in this area. As far as I know, a straight person doesn't forget they are heterosexual. They might forget social rules and manners and inhibitions, but will a man start hitting on another man because his dementia causes him to forget he's attracted to women?
Gay men and lesbian women also don't seem to forget their sexual orientation. Dementia might cause them to forget recent history like homosexuality is no longer criminalised or they might forget that they have 'come out' to family and friends. They may feel distressed and worried about what might happen and need reminding that people already know. But as far as I'm aware, people don't seem to forget their sexual orientation, which makes sense if we consider it to be a fairly innate and intrinsic part of a person's psyche.

Has anyone with dementia forgotten their gender identity?

Yes.

Although more studies are needed, there is evidence that trans people with dementia do seem to forget their 'innate' gender identity.

www.academia.edu/40621556/Forgotten_lives_Trans_older_adults_living_with_dementia_at_the_intersection_of_cisgenderism_ableism_cogniticism_and_ageism_Journal_Sexualities_2019_

"trans older adults with dementia may forget they transitioned and reidentify with their sex/gender assigned at birth or may experience ‘gender confusion.’ This raises crucial questions, for example regarding practices related to pronouns, care to the body (shaving, hair, clothes, etc.), social gendered interactions, health care (continuing or not hormonal therapy) and so on."

How can you be confused about something that you have always been? How can you forget something that you are?

Trans people have expressed that their most prevalent ageing-related fears are to live with dementia, to forget their chosen gender identity and be mistreated by healthcare professionals.

I can easily imagine there are universal fears when it comes to living with dementia - forgetting loved ones and memories, losing independence and agency, being mistreated by care staff etc.

Do people express fear at forgetting their sexuality? I don't think it's something that occurs to most people when they think about dementia.

I find it very odd that there is so much propaganda to insist that the concept of gender identity is an innate and intrinsic part of a person's psyche - that people are living their life authentically by transitioning, and yet if a person is merely being who they really are, why would they express distress about it?

Sexual orientation and gender identity are frequently conflated and combined. In that case we should see fairly similar levels of people forgetting their sexual orientation along with those people who forget their gender identity. Yet this is not the case. Why? I'll leave that up to the reader.

I realise it's not quite on topic, but I was reading the article about trying to send refugees offshore (☹️ something else terrible in itself) on the BBC and they list persecution on the grounds of "gender identity" but not sex as a reason for being granted asylum. I looked on the gov site and it lists gender, gender identity and sexual orientation. Surely to make sense this should be sex instead of gender or is this correct?
Link to gov site:
www.gov.uk/claim-asylum/eligibility
BBC screenshot attached

and they said they would only give you pain killers if you could prove it, how would you prove it?

Very easily if I had the resources
I'd measure the clear, well documented involuntary physiological responses to pain
Or put them in a fmri machine and see the clear, well documented neurological responses to pain

@Shizuku

Some people are unable to feel pain (congenital analgesia).

If you told someone with congenital analgesia that you were in pain and they said they would only give you pain killers if you could prove it, how would you prove it?

By measuring change in heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration, pupillary dilatation, changes in skin conductance - all objective physiological measures of involuntary autonomic nervous system activation in response to pain.

About the pain point, pain has involuntary behaviours associated with it. Pain related behaviours over a period of time are proof that a person is feeling pain. But are there “gender identity” behaviours ? Well, to say that there are behaviours correlated necessarily with being a woman seems sexist.

There are people who experience severe pain where it's thought to be somatic, psychological in origin, and have the experience often of not being believed. This happens. Quite widely. Women are less believed about pain than men; witness women expected to care alone for newborn babies a few hours after major abdominal surgery on a couple of paracetamol, where a man in another ward would be being nursed in bed on morphine.

There are also some severe pain conditions in which doctors are advised not to prescribe addictive pain meds but instead guide their patients towards exercise and psychological support.