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.

First, gender exists because we have two sexes and it is a fact of life, it’s neither feminist nor anti-feminist.

How the concept of gender is defined within a particular culture is an important feminist question. Iceland and Saudi Arabia both have male and female people and both cultures also have gender roles and rules, but the latter are very, very different. It is the task of feminism to interrogate gender, because the way in which it is turned into real-world rules and restriction and traditions is one of the major channels used in the subjugation of women and also in the liberation of women.

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.

I don't believe in such an innate identity, though I am willing to accept that some others do. Because gender identity is not a verifiable concept, believing in it should be treated as other forms of unverifiable belief. It certainly should not replace biological sex in the legal systems. Sex-based oppression is a major global problem and needs to be properly addressed.

Note, also, that what is regarded as masculine or feminine is affected by cultural and religious traditions and shows considerable variation both historically and cross-culturally.

As a teacher, when the kids start spouting their gender manifesto, I always say "yes, lots of people believe in innate gender identity, and these days that can be a very complicated and emotive topic, something of a minefield in fact. But lots of other people believe simply in biological sex, and individual personality".

This review from 2020 summarises the state of research into the question of how brains might show differences in either structure or activity by transgender status. At least up to that point the findings were inconclusive and most studies used very small sample sizes.

Our brains show plasticity, so finding or not finding differences in brain structures or activity doesn't actually mean that something innate has been shown to exist or not to exist. The London cabbies in the past developed giant long-term memory areas because they had to memorise a vast number of addresses, long-term depression changes brain patterns and so on.

I never said that radical feminists denied gender exists. But feminists like MacKinnon, Millet, Irigaray (admittedly not rad fem), de Beavoir have all argued that gender does not flow naturally from the fact there are two sexes. The fact we have two sexes does not mean a hierarchical gendered system is inevitable and thus gender abolition is a utopian dream. Yes, gender exists and is real, but it is ultimately a social construct grounded in biology and so amenable to change and reform. The mere fact of sexual difference does not mean gender HAS to thereby follow. But gender is ancient and universal and so appears to be something which is natural and a fact of life … we can get rid of race, we can get rid of class, but we are stuck with gender. There are some rad fems who have denied this. And then you get some postmodernists who say that the existence of two sexes isn’t a given, but as you can see on mumsnet that approach is generally seen to be counter productive and anti scientific.

On the points about gender identity, I find it very interesting that gender identity is descended as “innate”. Usually, an innate cognitive feature is something we are born with that isn’t learned - like language, the ability to recognise faces, our recognition of basic physical laws like gravity. Gender doesn’t seem to be innate in the same way as it surely depends on the social system of gender. If gender didn’t exist would we still have gender identity ?

And I also find it interesting that gender is described as a “sense of self”. I’m not even sure that the concept of the “self” is something that is a given. Some cultures don’t have a very strong idea that there is a “self” , and self hood is highly variable depending on the society. But what does it mean to say you have a “sense” of self ? A “sense” is usually a cognitive mechanism that takes in data and produces a sensory perception at the end- vision, smell etc. What does the self sense do? Why do we have it ? I certainly cannot introspect and detect a sense of self. I’m sorry for being fussy , but this is why I find these concepts so hard to grasp.

This has been a really interesting thread, thanks to everyone who has taken the time to contribute.

Like others I have appreciated @Discovereads putting across the case for gender identity so patiently and thoroughly and articulately. I mean this respectfully, but for me, what has been made clear is that when you have both positions explained in detail, by smart people talking in good faith, without name calling or distractions, it is very plain that the genderist ideology just does not hold up at all.

The definitions are all circular, the need to characterise personality traits as masculine or feminine is clearly problematic and upholds sexism, and there's absolutely nothing to support the idea that such a subjective and nebulous concept as 'gender identity' should be elevated over the verifiable material reality of sex in law or in any aspect of life where separation of males and females is advisable.

A 'sense' can mean a physical response to a stimulus (eg sight, hearing, balance), but it can also mean an awareness of something that may not connect to a stimulus (eg time) or that may relate to a societal perception (eg status). I am certain that a sense of 'self' exists, otherwise how could we be aware of ourselves as individuals, separate to others? Babies appear to have no sense of self at first, and only exhibit separation anxiety when they begin to develop a sense of themselves as separate to their caregivers - and therefore at risk of abandonment.

A baby's sense of self is very fragile and depends upon their caregiver's presence to keep them safe. A baby does not understand that she is still safe even when Mummy has left the room.

As we mature, our sense of self becomes more and more complex, influenced hugely by society and our experiences. The person who is constantly dependent upon others to validate their sense of self, is either extremely vulnerable, like a baby, or extremely controlling, like a narcissist.

Good idea.

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.

Hm. So what do you mean by a "gender identity" that is "neither type of gender"?

I have a "gender identity" in the weak sense that I can look at myself and say yes, I'm female, and I can live with that, and I can also live with most of the social gender shit that comes alongside, though I might not like all of it (and thank goodness for feminism, which means I can change some of it). Which would make my "gender identity" feminine I suppose?

But on the other hand, if I woke up tomorrow in a male body I would not be making any effort to get my female body and social role back. I'd be learning to live in a male body and a man's social role, same as I had to learn to live in a female body and a woman's social role over the years. I sure as sugar would not be having any kind of "corrective" surgery to give myself a disfunctional female-looking body instead of a fully functioning male one, nor even trying to get back into women's spaces nor expect other people to treat me as a woman just because that's what I was accustomed to. I'd be trying to get myself accepted as a man with my own variant of masculinity. So does my lack of commitment to femininity mean that my gender identity is "neither type of gender"?

Or does a gender identity of "neither type of gender" mean that I would be most comfortable in a body with no sex-distinct sexual or reproductive organs at all? (Which I wouldn't.)

Or does it mean something quite different from any of those?

And one of the points I'm trying to make is that my "gender identity" is not innate at all, but learned. I had to come to terms with having a female body (messy, weirdly shaped, short, etc) and with having to deal with feminine gender-shit and social restrictions and sexual vulnerability - all of which are learned adaptations to the world and not innate at all.