Question about gender identity

[Aspiringmatriarch]

I've been wondering about something. Many posters on here state that there's no such thing as a gender identity, and it comes down to gender stereotypes and being non-conforming. I don't know if I agree with this or not, but one particular question is bugging me and I'm wondering if anyone can help me clear this up.

Firstly I know intersex is not the same as being trans. However. What about people who are born with ambiguous genitalia and, in the past at least, were sometimes operated on and subsequently brought up as one sex without knowing they were intersex? Some of these people have a strong sense they are not actually female (if raised as female) and vice versa, and only realise the cause of this when they discover they're intersex. Isn't this an example of gender identity being real? Or am I misunderstanding something?

OP

You might find this interesting.

A baby born without obvious genitals, started life as a boy, then as a girl and then as an adult is male. You might remember the battle for a new birth certificate when he was called Joella and being raised as a girl.

www.itv.com/news/anglia/2015-11-06/man-who-was-raised-a-girl-calls-for-ban-on-surgery-until-children-can-make-up-their-own-minds

Off topic somewhat but thank you for that link, sashh. I watched Joella’s story on TV and remember it vividly. I often wondered what happened to them.

OP Or am I misunderstanding something?

Just to highlight ClareCAIS 's posts and the MRKH blog I posted upthread.

[quote ClareCAIS]Evidence here - and again please leave people born with variations of sex development, out of the arguments - concentrate on their needs, rather than using them to validate beliefs about gender

www.dsd-life.eu/fileadmin/websites/dsd-life/images/Flyer/Gender_dysphoria_and_gender_change_Final.pdf[/quote]

and again please leave people born with variations of sex development, out of the arguments

@ClareCAIS welcome! And I'm so sorry you were booted off Twitter by the MRA/incel geeks who run it.

Your point here is so important, and widely misunderstood. It's reading your writing, and that of other women with DSD, that has educated me about that term "intersex."

It's awful the way that that medical condition has been used, and at some points weaponised in the TRA assault on women's rights.

Thanks for all you do and write. And apologies if this post prolongs that exploitation but I wanted to say thank you.

During Pride month 8 commented that intersex was an outdated term and the preference was DSD. I also commented that Stonewall had dropped the i in their LGBTQ+. I linked to DSD Families. dsdfamilies.org/charity

I was told that parents deciding on children's futures wasn't appropriate so I asked for other charities, which funny enough were all happy to have the i included. I was told we must support those people who want to use intersex and be part of pride.

I read some of the links and it seems that most if the people were quite old and had corrective surgery as babies, something that doesn't happen now. I was left feeling very confused and told off so didn't pursue it any further for fear of being called transphobic.

It is really confusing, surely parents wanting their child's individual medical needs met is more progressive than labelling them the strange term intersex?

most if the people were quite old and had corrective surgery as babies, something that doesn't happen now.

If you haven't seen this previously, it might be helpful:

DSD diagnosis and treatment is varied and complex, there is not a one size fits all answer to questions about surgeries and interventions. People trying to reduce us to such a simplistic worldview are not allies, neither are those who stay silent. Please share the stories of these CAH women and please stop sloganeering intersex people and our healthcare. We deserve and need better than that.

mrkhvoice.com/index.php/2019/08/23/the-problem-with-intersex-surgeries/

Thank you that was very interesting. This was an interesting reply to a comment, which helps me support the DSD Families stance. The problem is some (most?) DSDs are not about ambiguous genitals but about functionality of the body to urinate or menstruate (if female). Her analogy with the extra thumb on an infant being removed to improve functionality was good. It is interesting how any surgery in infancy is demonised.

A good place to start, OP, if you want to get to grips with this, is Alex Byrne's article, What is gender identity?

(Byrne is professor of philosophy at MIT. The article is fairly painstaking, if popular in tone, and covers most of your concerns with clarity and good sense.)

One of Byrne's conclusions: '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 ...

This takes care, if you like, of gender identity as a kind of scientific something-or-other; if there is no way of detecting something, generally scientists will agree (at least pro tem ) it does not exist.

There remain non-scientific reasons that can sometimes be adduced, as for things like immortal souls, say. Some people say they believe in immortal souls, others deny their existence; either way, the argument does not proceed scientifically, in the absence of 'a way of detecting' the soul's presence, to use Byrne's phrase. The existence of gender identity may be supported by similar such non-scientific reasoning.

Such latter reasons are often called metaphysical , for historical reasons to do with Aristotle's writings. What should our atitude be to such metaphysics ? Generally, at least in contemporary politics and its ramifications, metaphysics is held not to be a useful way of deciding important questions of law or social policy.

Is there such a thing as gender identity, then? No , not if we are asking in scientific mode. Possibly , if we are discussing in metaphysical terms ... but in this latter case, the answer is anyway unimportant as regards policy and the law.

Of course we as a society make plenty of room for people who believe in immortal souls, as we should. We ought to think of those who believe in gender identity similarly, of course, no matter what our own metaphysical beliefs (or lack thereof). But and this is very important we should no more allow gender-identity-believers to dictate our beliefs or policies than we should allow immortal-soul-believers to do so.

Gender dysphoria is a legally recognised term and has been classed as a mental illness. I have met a trans child who was on an NHS waiting list for medication (HRT) and they were very obviously suffering as a result of not getting the medication they needed. In the end it doesn’t matter whether somebody with gender dysphoria only recognised that they don’t identify with the scocietal implications of being their birth gender because not transition causes tangible harm to the child like any other mental illness

I think you've conflated two completely different concepts:
"Knowing what sex my body is"
with
"Gender identity" (which means...what exactly?)

A rule of thumb is that if you're using a phrase or word and you couldn't define it even if your life depended on it, it's probably a red herring phrase.

If something doesn't make sense, it's probably because there's a red herring word or phrase in there confusing you because it's trying to be two opposing things at once. Imagine you are red-penning your own thoughts, and asking "what exactly do I mean by this, can I express this using completely different words to make it clearer?"

Use definitions instead of these red herring terms and daylight enters.

met a trans child who was on an NHS waiting list for medication (HRT) and they were very obviously suffering as a result of not getting the medication they needed.

Did you see Sinead Watson's recent video about what she needed was assistance with her MH and trauma, not the hormones and surgery that she received?

I think you've conflated two completely different concepts:
"Knowing what sex my body is"
with
"Gender identity" (which means...what exactly?)

Yes I think maybe that's true. I think one of the things that has confused me is that on here gender is seen as socially conditioned stereotypes and I just thought it was logical if someone was raised in one set of stereotypes then they would just accept it. But I've tried to find examples and can't really other than David Reimer who must have had some awareness that something was wrong and from reading more about it, was also treated very abusively . Anyway, I didn't mean to 'use' intersex people to make a point so I'm sorry if it came across like that. I've been reading the blog someone linked and will follow up on the other links when I can.

Just out of interest, a couple of people here have said they're not 'blank slatist', which is what I thought gender critical basically meant. Can someone explain? My view is that hormones explain a lot of the behavioural differences between men and women, but then social expectations turn that into something oppressive we call gender roles, stereotypes etc. Is that a gender critical view or is it another way of being sexist? Is sexism anything that suggests differences between men and women beyond the obvious physical ones?

Good point Barracker. Another way of looking at it is that "knowing what sex one's body is" is not the same thing as "a feeling that one is the opposite sex to one's body".

Those are not the same thing. One is an accurate observation. The other is dysphoria.

Grouping them together as "a belief about one's sex", ie "gender identity" is designed to obfuscate the basic reality.

Reimer eventually did accurately observe his sex. But that's not the same thing him having a feeling of being the opposite sex.

My view is that hormones explain a lot of the behavioural differences between men and women, but then social expectations turn that into something oppressive we call gender roles, stereotypes etc. Is that a gender critical view or is it another way of being sexist?

Sounds like being gender critical to me. Welcome!

This was a pinned sidebar image on Reddit's r/GenderCritical for ages. A pithy summary, I think.

It's not sexist to acknowledge statistical differences between sexes.

It is sexist to not treat individuals based on their ability, but prejudge them from their sex.

It can be sexist to ignore the differences between sexes and not make accomodations (such as women's sports).

Just out of interest, a couple of people here have said they're not 'blank slatist', which is what I thought gender critical basically meant. Can someone explain? My view is that hormones explain a lot of the behavioural differences between men and women, but then social expectations turn that into something oppressive we call gender roles, stereotypes etc. Is that a gender critical view or is it another way of being sexist? Is sexism anything that suggests differences between men and women beyond the obvious physical ones?

Fwiw, I'm not 'gender critical'. I am a materialist feminist, which as far as I'm concerned means I try and base my perspective on material reality, and focus on the liberation of women from a complicated gender system that serves to disadvantage them in almost every sphere of life.

People will have different perspectives on how the gender system arises, and that's fine, feminism isn't a religion with a creed, it's politics, so disagreement and different perspectives are to be expected. That's almost kind of the point - women are whole human beings with their own minds, and you reach consensus by acknowledging differences as well as commonalities.

I personally agree with NecessaryScene's summary there.

A) I acknowledge biology, I accept it has real life consequences.

B) I do not think society should be set up in such a way that disadvantages women by ignoring biology or prejudging women on that basis.

Yes the nature nurture question has been going on for a long long time!

It's contentious because of course often the things that people want boys girls etc to behave like, enjoy, be naturally better at are very often coincidentally linked to nature- natural preferences and temperament etc.

Eg women are nurturing and enjoy caring etc so doing it for free or low pay is aok
Or
Men are natural leaders and so that's why they are the vast majority of those in charge of so many things

In feminism the topic can therefore get quite fighty!

In practice teasing out nature from nurture is very very hard

And the history of the constant 'let's find out why men/ women can/ can't do this thing which is what the stereotype says' makes many very wary.