I think we should use the word 'personality' more

[ThisIsJeopardy]

As the whole sex / gender discussion has had so much more public discussion lately, not least because of male athletes in women's sport, and because of JKR, I've found myself having conversations in real life which I've been wanting but have felt unable to have for years now. And in doing so, I've had to articulate my position on what I find objectionable about genderism, why I won't describe myself as 'cis' etc.

I just want to share the explanation that I have found to be most effective in helping people who are new to this discussion to grasp why it's so problematic to feminists.

I think we've adopted too much of the ideology's language, and we talk in terms of the difference between sex and 'gender identitiy'. People assume that gender identity means something true and proven and profound. I find it more helpful to talk in terms of bodies and personalities:

So, I have a body, and I have a personality (all my thoughts and feelings, likes and dislikes, sense of humour and intelligence and aptitudes and weaknesses and attractions and aversions).

My body is female. My personality isn't male or female... It's just a human personality and it's unique to me. Sure, it's been shaped by my experiences and some of those experiences have been related to having a female body. But my personality itself isn't female, because 'female' isn't a type of personality. It's a reproductive sex class; a type of body. When people talk about 'gender identity', they're talking about having a male personality or a female personality, and whether the sex of their personality matches the sex of their body. And if they describe me as 'cis', they're saying I have a female personality to match my female body. I reject that description of myself.

I think back to all of the work and the struggles of feminists before me and I can't accept that we're sliding back into an acceptance that our personalities are either male or female, and we're supposed call that progress. That's the same assumption that was used to justify women not having positions of leadership or even the vote, and men not having caring responsibilities or being allowed to show emotion other than anger. Or that gay men and lesbians weren't 'proper' men and women respectively. It's so sexist and undermining of so much progress to assert that there are male personalities or personality traits and female ones. Calling it 'gender identity' instead of 'personality' doesn't change how regressive and sexist that is.

People who consider themselves non binary are saying that their personalities are neither male nor female, and that that's a condition specific to 'NB' people. But that just puts all the rest of us more firmly in the 'male personality' and 'female personality' boxes that feminist has been trying for hundreds of years to free us all from.

I fully accept and empathise with the fact that other people have different beliefs about their own bodies and personalities and they can describe themselves how they like. But the movement to enshrine in law and in education and in society, this idea that our personalities are male or female, is not something I can support or participate in.

This is the kind of framing that has helped the penny drop for a few people in my life. I would love to know what has worked for others.

It is a very attractive idea, but I think at core it is utopian and thus impossible to actually implement. Why? Because humanity is divided into two sexes. Gender is the social result of this biological reality, which cannot be changed.

But of course we can change society. It is the one thing we CAN change. And the thing that feminists working since the 70s have been trying to change. It is not utopian, there is a lot of pushback. Sadly that push back has come from younger feminists in recent years. But as you highlight with the word "utopia", it IS the ideal.

I came up with this theory a few years ago (sorry @ThisIsJeopardy 🤣) and have been using it with the children in school.

So when a child approaches me with a gender identity statement, I usually reply with ‘it’s great that you’re discovering your personality!’.

@Discovereads if you state that 'some feminists are trans inclusive ', it is implicit that some are not, ie. trans exclusive.

I never mentioned, or implied, cosmetic surgery. I'm aware the vast majority of transpeople don't bother. Good thing too, far too many bad outcomes iirc. Talking of words going where words don't belong.

While getting rid of gender identities might be unrealistic and utopian the answer is more? Really? If you can't have a perfect world just give up? In fact, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Hyperbole for dramatic effect...but really.

Also, I think many feminists would take umbrage that they're supposedly fighting against the suppression of gi. That has to have been a typo.

Just for clarity, are you using gender as a polite synonym for sex? I don't think so, but jic.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165178118312472 personality changes from testosterone for trans men - increased extraversion, decreased neuroticism

cpap.shahed.ac.ir/article_2922.html?lang=en propensity to experience gender dysphoria - high extraversion and high neuroticism

Here are just two articles outlining that personality is a relevant conversation in all of this (there are plenty more)

Firstly, your personality matters in how attracted you are to the trans, and your propensity to transition. High extraversion and high neuroticism is what this study found (neuroticism is always there, but other studies have shown it alongside agreeableness) and this tells us there are certain aspects of personality that are more likely to transition, nodding to the statement by pp that people are "just discovering their personality". It is a risk factor essentially.

But also, there is the thorny issue that there is more of a propensity of having certain personality traits if you are male or female, e.g. neuroticism. It gets complicated because clearly that hints at there being a 'female personality' and everyone here knows that is historically dangerous and a way in which to oppress women. But I am not sure it is good to ignore the fact that most of the kind & giving people you know are female, most of the very overly dominant people you know are male. We all know this, we see it every day (please don't say that you are not kind and are very dominant - yes, of course you can be as a woman, but if you look to your entire group of friends, families and acquaintances, you will see a pattern)

This leaves us with a reality that there is 'something' about a generalised female personality, and that some men (for a multitude of reasons combining their personality type and their experiences) may want to have this 'female personality' which means being more nurturing and less dominant. It may seem attractive psychologically and sexually (AGP).

I think this is brilliantly articulated, thank you OP. Agree with everything.

Further musings...

There seems something coy and teenage about the concept of gender identity - unsullied by association with earthly flesh yet requiring external validation. It shrinks prudishly from sex and reproduction. It puts me in mind of the young cyclist Emily Bridges saying "it sucks to race as a man when you're not one". Bridges, of course, was due to race world champion Dame Laura Kenny (just weeks after winning men's races), until a last-minute change of rules. Dame Laura recently shared her sad experiences of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy. I don't know whether her timing was meaningful or coincidental (she also stuck up for women-only sport around the same time), but it very clearly illustrated the gulf between the gender identitarian view, and the material reality.

On gender abolitionism: as I said earlier, I personally have no interest in an androgynous world where men and women are entirely indistinguishable clothed. If individuals want to be androgynous, that's up to them (I just probably won't fancy them). However, one doesn't have to be a gender abolitionist to deplore gender ideology. I would liken it to discussions on appropriation and lived experience. E.g. if I enjoy the food, clothing, dialect, lifestyle typical of another culture, I think that's absolutely fine (and frankly have little time for most claims of cultural appropriation I hear of). However, if I go about saying that I am of that culture, that's clearly wrong, and potentially quite offensive to people of that heritage as I would seem to be saying that they are defined by liking curry or croissants, say, and that based on my stated tastes I have equal claim to their heritage.

Hi @BelleTheBananas , to be fair I don't think either of us will have been the first to recognise that gender identity is just a sexist framing of personality... It's not a new revelation to me either, I just would like to see it make its way more frequently into the discourse on this subject.

@Discovereads you point out that gender non-conformity isn't new, and of course it isn't. But what it used to mean was: "I don't adhere to all the social and cultural expectations ascribed to womanhood, because those are just oppressive sexist stereotypes. I can reject them and live my life how I choose, and am no less a woman for that."

The ideology you are defending has changed the meaning of 'gender non-conforming' to mean: "I don't adhere to all the social and cultural expectations ascribed to womanhood, so that means maybe I'm not really a woman and my 'gender identity' must be transman or nonbinary."

Which just upholds the idea that "being a woman" (or man, as the case may be) actually does mean conformity to all those bullshit sexist limits and expectations.

That ain't progress, and it ain't feminism either.

The idea that the existence of two sexes entails there MUST be genders is anti feminist. Radical feminists have always maintained that natural facts about biological do not necessarily lead to gender. Gender appears inevitable because we think it is “natural”. This is false. Now, if you think gender is natural and inevitable then I can see why you would scoff at the “utopia” of abolition and instead try to play around the edges… maybe say that some men can become women if they adopt the female gender. But this is pretty conservative.

Saying gender is inevitable because we have two sexes is like saying racism and slavery is inevitable because we have different races. In fact , it’s a social construct which we can change. Feminism has had enormous success in showing that gender is make up and not natural - women were thought to be physically and mentally incapable of being lawyers less than one hundred years ago, and now women dominate the legal profession.

I remember seeing a video where contrapoints mocked the idea of getting rid of gender, and quipped that it would be a boring world if they didn’t get to wear makeup and acrylic nails. I sometimes think that is a big reason why trans people are so invested in gender. They don’t see it as a source of oppression but of enjoyment. Now that’s a fine view to take, but it certainly isn’t feminist.

The idea that the existence of two sexes entails there MUST be genders is anti feminist. Radical feminists have always maintained that natural facts about biological do not necessarily lead to gender.

First, gender exists because we have two sexes and it is a fact of life, it’s neither feminist nor anti-feminist. And what radical feminists have always maintained is that one’s sex does not determine one’s natural abilities, as in gender stereotypes are just stereotypes there is no biological determinism that says for example, all women are better at nurturing and all men are better at leading. Radical feminists have never denied the very existence of gender.

Saying gender is inevitable because we have two sexes is like saying racism…is inevitable because we have different races.

No thats not a valid analogy. Racism is a completely different type of concept from gender identity.

@ThisIsJeopardy
”you point out that gender non-conformity isn't new, and of course it isn't. But what it used to mean was: "I don't adhere to all the social and cultural expectations ascribed to womanhood, because those are just oppressive sexist stereotypes. I can reject them and live my life how I choose, and am no less a woman for that." The ideology you are defending has changed the meaning of 'gender non-conforming' to mean: "I don't adhere to all the social and cultural expectations ascribed to womanhood, so that means maybe I'm not really a woman and my 'gender identity' must be transman or nonbinary."

I don’t agree I’m defending that particular branch of ideology. Gender nonconforming simply describes the degree to which an individual's appearance, behavior, interests, and subjective self-concept deviate from conventional norms for masculinity/femininity. Being gender nonconforming doesn’t mean you’re not really a woman (or man) or that you are transgender. You can be transgender and be completely gender conforming. Gender conformance is performance. It’s not the innate psyche that is your gender identity.

"Radical feminists have never denied the very existence of gender."

Of course radical feminists know gender exists. But they recognise that it exists as an oppressive, socially imposed hierarchy that subjugates women and therefore must be abolished.

Not an innate state of being, measurable only by conformity to stereotype (and if you think I'm wrong about that, please explain how else it is measured?), to be reified, reinforced and celebrated.

@ThisIsJeopardy
Exactly. Radical feminists have always recognised the existence of gender and its use as a tool of oppression. And some of these are gender abolitionists. As I said several posts ago. Glad we agree on that.

Secondly, gender is also an innate state of being and it’s existence has been seen/documented using MRI brain scans. “Brain activity and structure in transgender adolescents more closely resembles the typical activation patterns of their desired gender, according to new research. “ www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm

This isn’t the only study by the way, the above has been replicated in other studies.

@Discovereads , is your argument not contradictory? You are saying that 1. Gender identity is part of innate psyche, nothing to do with gender conformity or nonconformity, and 2. That gender roles are essential because ultimately they derive from the two sexes. What does 1 have to do with 2? You also, I think, say (sensibly, if so) that trans-identified people need not alter their bodies - so it's neither to do with social roles nor to do with being in the "wrong body".

This basically leaves us with a gendered soul, swirling about in an endlessly circular definition. Sam feels that Sam is female therefore Sam is female but also yes there are biologically female people in the world and conventions attached to the female sex but this has nothing to do with Sam other than Sam feels an intense need to be categorised with them in every context and at the level of policy and law and therefore Sam's will be done. Does this about sum it up, or if not can you fill in the gaps?

(Name Sam chosen at random as generic unisex name)

I put it to you that most people's "gender identity" derives from their real-world knowledge and lived experience that they are a certain sex. It's a false thought experiment to imagine our horror at waking up one day in "the wrong body", because this is not what happens.

Oh great, the lady brain has been (re)discovered. I thought those studies were older ones looking at the lesser-spotted homosexual transexuals, but I see this is newer and looking at kids. I'm not an academic or scientist (many here are) so I've nothing to say about the methodology, but do you not think it might be putting the cart before the horse? i.e. young people who feel that they think differently to others of their sex, are more likely to latch onto gender identity as an explanation? We know autistic girls are hugely overrepresented, and of course there is the notorious "male brain" theory of autism.

I'm sure you've heard of brain plasticity, @Discovereads.

Also, your point just brings us back to the fact that we're talking about personalities, which vary widely across the two sexes and do not need to be categorised as male, female or other, unless we wish to uphold sexist stereotypes and gender as a system of oppression.

As for "gender is also an innate state of being", that is your belief, not a fact. The study you link no more 'proves' innate gender than it would 'prove' the legitimacy of astrology if it found that, both people born as Picean, and those who strongly identify as Picean despite being born in July, share some characteristics typically associated with Piceans. So what?

@SpringBadger
Ill try and answer as best I can
1. Gender identity is part of innate psyche, nothing to do with gender conformity or nonconformity,. No, I did not say gender conforming has nothing to do with gender identity. I stated (in a round about way), that gender nonconformance does not by itself determine your gender identity or whether you are transgender or not. It contributes. So it’s not nothing but it also doesn’t determine.

2. That gender roles are essential because ultimately they derive from the two sexes.. No, I actually stated that gender exists because we have two sexes and so therefore cannot realistically be abolished. (I never said anything about gender roles or them being essential).

In regards to Sam, you’ve lost me. But
most people's "gender identity" derives from their real-world knowledge and lived experience that they are a certain sex I would agree with this as most people do not experience gender dysphoria so their gender identity seems a natural derivative of their life knowledge and experiences as their sex. But for a minority of people, their gender identity differs from the norms for their sex despite the same life knowledge and experiences. The human brain is more plastic than formerly thought. It can develop along vastly different pathways even in similar environments.

As for "gender is also an innate state of being", that is your belief, not a fact.

That’s “gender identity” is an innate state of being/sense of self. The term “gender” is much broader and has a different definition. Well, if it’s a belief, it’s a science based one held by billions of people including neuroscientists, psychologists and so on. It’s defined in the dictionaries. It’s used in common discourse. No one denies the existence of gender identity…unless you are by calling it “not a fact”? It’s about as close to a fact as you can get these days.

@Discovereads , I'm not sure we do agree (re: your last paragraph). Are you saying that the normal state of affairs is to feel like you are the sex that you are (if one considers this a feeling at all), but that certain factors (like what?) can prompt the brain to reshape itself thus inducing the person to feel themselves to be the opposite sex? Would this be a neurological problem, a similar type of condition to phantom limb syndrome? Could it be induced by unhappy life events, i.e. a condition in the realm of psychiatric trauma? Look, I'm not a psychologist so I'll stop there, but I think it's fair to say there are many possible explanations for the phenomenon you suggest, without needing to believe in the rightful-satnav theory of gender identity.

My question about Sam is pretty simple: what is the relevance and meaning of someone's declared gender identity, when by your own admission it has nothing to do with what we normally understand about sex and gender roles? (Although you have since said that it might have a bit to do with gender role conformity after all... Seems quite a slippery definition to pin down.). What does or should it have to do with the members of the sex with which they identify? Basically, what do I have in common with a TW (and please don't say that we share a "gender identity"!).

I think the "so what" questions are more important, actually. You believe in innate gender identities, I don't - OK. We are all entitled to draw conclusions and to hold beliefs that bring us meaning or comfort - I'm sure I believe things that other people might find silly. But since this belief is the cornerstone of so much political activism and actual law and policy - I ask so what if there are gender identities? Why would that entitle Emily Bridges or Lia Thomas to compete in the women's race? When you look at it like that, gender identity surely fits better under the heading of "personality" than anything close to sex. Do you agree that there are situations where self-declared gender identities are irrelevant and biological sex should be the divider? Do you believe there are any situations that should be segregated by gender identity? If so, why not just make them fully mixed sex?

Thank you for engaging civilly - you don't need to be the spokesperson for all who believe in gender identity, but I am interested in your responses.

Oh come now... Billions of people believe in innate gender identities? There are only about 8 billion people in the world, most not living in the West. I would imagine many of them believe in innate differences between men and women, yes. (I would think many of them live lives that make those differences more salient). I cannot imagine many of them believe in independent gender identities that mix and match between the sexes. This is a very modern American belief. Certainly some societies are keen on policing masculinity - such as Iran with its sex changes for gay men, and the often-mentioned tribal cultures with "third genders" which turns out to be a way to deal with effeminate men (note "third" - they are not sent off to the menstrual huts).

"No one denies the existence of gender identity…unless you are by calling it “not a fact”? It’s about as close to a fact as you can get these days."

Well the whole point of my OP was to say that from what I can tell, Gender Identity is really just personality, as measured against sexist stereotypes. I haven't seen any better definition of it than that.

The dictionary definitions are either circular and subjective:

Gender Identity (n): an individual's personal sense of having a particular gender.(Oxford)

or they acknowledge that it's all based on culturally enforced gender roles and stereotype:

Gender (n): either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.

If you rely on the dictionary definitions, is your position that Gender is both culturally and socially constructed and an aspect of the innate psyche? So for the most part, women and men really are innately compatible with the roles and limitations culturally and socially ascribed to their respective sexes, except in a few special cases where people are lucky enough to be innately nonbinary and can therefore live as they choose?

How does that work in a social or cultural context that says the role of 'woman' is incompatible with schooling, voting, or public life? Should women in that situation accept that either their innate psyche aligns comfortably with that subjugated role, or else they are experiencing a mismatch between their innate psyche and what society expects of their sex, and therefore must be trans?

Should they seek recognition as transmen, or liberation as women?

@Discovereads I also want to thank you again for the respectful engagement, and for taking the time to articulate your views and find common ground if possible.

So - gender identity can be defined as an innate and compelling sense of whether one is male or female, which may or may not be outwardly observable depending on the extend to which the individual complies (voluntarily or under compulsion) with the stereotypes of male or female behaviour peculiar to that particular time and place?
Is that it?

Same to you. This whole thread has been really good and respectful from all viewpoints.

Ok
Gender is both culturally and socially constructed and an aspect of the innate psyche? Gender is a cultural and social construct derived from the fact we have two sexes, it’s commonly thought of as a spectrum with male and female at two poles and trans somewhere inbetween. I think gender is a bit more complex and more like over lapping circles. But this is a fast developing area of thought so I’m not saying I’m the authority or anything, these are my thoughts based in what I’ve read on the subject. Gender identity, however, is that innate aspect of our psyche, our sense of self that tells us whether we have a feminine, masculine, both, or neither type of gender. It’s important to distinguish between gender and gender identity,…and other terms as well as they all mean different things.

By the way, I do think your comparing gender identity to personality is a good analogy, but I don’t think gender identity is the same as or a synonym for personality, if that makes sense? To me, gender identity is similar to say cultural identity or class identity. It’s inherent, innate, and affects your personality but isn’t the core you, your personality that is wholly unique as a human being.

“How does that work in a social or cultural context that says the role of 'woman' is incompatible with schooling, voting, or public life? Should women in that situation accept that either their innate psyche aligns comfortably with that subjugated role, or else they are experiencing a mismatch between their innate psyche and what society expects of their sex, and therefore must be trans?”

This crosses over into the question of gender roles. Which are not gender identity or gender. The gender role examples you listed are not really gender related imho but rather roles assigned based on sex. It goes back to how gender has been misused as a tool of oppression. In other words: voting, schooling, any rights are not a true gender difference. It’s masquerading as a gender role difference in order to justify the subjugation of women due to their sex. It’s our job as feminists to deconstruct and analyse any gender role or stereotype to judge is this really a gender difference, or is it the misuse of gender to justify oppression of our sex? I hope this answers your questions.

Cultural and class identity are definitely not innate.

@Discovereads I'd like to echo the other posters, thank you.