Gender identity research

[Vebrithien]

Morning,

Just wondering if anyone has any scientific research that shows EVERYONE has a gender identity?

Likewise, is there any scientific research that shows that not everyone have a gender identity?

Am preparing references for arguing my point with DD's school, that gender identity is a belief, not a fact.

Thank you!

@Hepwo The census data does have credibility because of its history and the standing ONS has. It will be quoted as fact for the next 10 years and public sector organisations will use the data to plan service provisions.

The op asked for scientific evidence that everyone has a gender identity. Whilst you can extrapolate from the responses that many people do, the fact some people chose not to respond, put not applicable, I don’t have a gender or, as you point out, more people said no and gave no gender identity than those that said no and stated a gender identity can be extrapolated to show not “everyone” has a gender identity, which is the evidence the op wanted.

If you have a different credible source to show not everyone has a gender identity I am sure the op would be grateful if you could provide it.

The op asked for scientific evidence that everyone has a gender identity

A census is not "scientific evidence".

The rest of your paragraph is very hard to follow. Which is my actual point. It's incoherent. It proves or disproves nothing. All it is telling us is that the public sector organisations quoting as facts as you suggest are gullible fools. Which we already know.

There are more people in the 2021 census that do not have gender identity, than are Hindu AND Jewish, added together.

Given that DD's primary school teach about both Hindu and Jewish beliefs, surely they should also teach about gender critical beliefs!

DH, for instance. He looked at the question, rolled his eyes and said ‘well, I’m a man and I know I’m a man so yes, I suppose?’

I omitted it, and commented on the fact.

Teenage DD burst into tears and said I ought to know it didn’t mean ‘people who know they’re women and are just being difficult’.

I said that if it was a serious question, it needed a serious answer, and that I genuinely had no reason except for being female to think of myself as a woman.

DH said he agreed and wished he’d skipped the ‘load of bollocks’ gender question too.

I don’t remember previous census evenings being remotely as emotional!

Indeed. It's like people who used to tick "CofE" out of habit in response to religion questions despite never actually attending church or believing in god.

@Vebrithien exactly.

Under the EA2010 GC and GI beliefs are equally valid and equally protected, neither takes precedence. Plus, as you know from your other thread, Sex is also a pc. Schools should provide a balanced view and teach children in an appropriate way about all the pcs.

How do you prove that anyone has any kind of identity? I think if you say someone's name and they're in an MRI bits of their brain will light up in response, but beyond that? Perhaps the next time when they find one of those kids who have been brought up by wolves they can ask them if they identify as boy, girl or non-binary?

If you want to believe that, please do carry on. If OP goes to school saying that the vast majority of the population have confirmed they have a gender identity then she's proving them to be right in their intentions.

The census was written by people who intended to manipulate as was made very clear at the time.

I agree. I think the written argument Brazilian provided is good and well made in terms of the EA but I don't think it's helpful to frame gender identity in this way to people with a limited understanding of what the claims and demands are. The onus is on them to demonstrate it exists, let them do that and then it's easy to refute that with logic.

@Hepwo A census is not "scientific evidence". please enlighten me what is your definition is of “scientific evidence” if it’s not data collection and analysis.

Sorry, my second para was not as clear as it could be, all I was pointing out was the number of responses that indicated the question was not applicable or they didn’t have a gender identity etc. is sufficient to demonstrate not everyone has a gender identity.

@TheBiologyStupid @oldwomanwhoruns @nepetaI had no issue with what you said. My point has been what ever you think of the ONS data it can be used to indicate not everyone has a gender identity. Using what is viewed as credible data, or Stonewalls words, gives weight to the OPs arguments.

For what it’s worth, my view is the vast majority of the adult population have always use sex and gender interchangeably and answered that question with a duh of course it’s the same. For those of us on FWR it’s easy to think everyone is up to date on the debate, but most people are fairly oblivious. It took putting a newly convicted double rapist into a women’s prison to get a policy that’s been in place since 2014 to be reviewed. You only have to look at the heat map for the current petition to clarify the EA2010 to see how much more aware Scotland is than England and Wales.

Well I for one don’t have a gender identity! I have a sex, and I don’t ascribe to gender stereotypes, which is what ‘gender identity’ is.

You might think of using some of Alex Byrne's published work. Byrne is Professor (of Philosophy) at MIT, and has published useful critiques of gender identity theory.

For instance, look at this (relatively straightforward, albeit fairly thorough): What is Gender Identity?, in which one of his conclusions reads, "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."

I suspect this is about as 'scientific' as you will find.

Byrne has other published work on this, too, amongst his more traditional work in philosophy of mind, perception, epistemology etc. Check out his webpage at MIT: web.mit.edu/abyrne/www/

[I do not claim Byrne gets everything right. The gender identity stuff is pretty good, though, and mostly plainly correct: I think you can take it as fairly authoritative.]

@Ereshkigalangcleg so if the school says to the op, “everyone has a gender identity” how should the op refute it? This is the question the op has asked for help with.

In my experience most people don’t understand data and stats and saying “the ONS analysis of the 2021 Census indicates not everyone has a gender identity. What evidence do you have that everyone has a gender identity?” Along with other evidence may well be enough to make the school rethink.

I gave the op links to the data and analysis and a way to spin it, so that the op can look at the source data and make up her own mind if it would be useful. I started by saying “not concrete proof”. From following the OPs previous thread and this one it is clear the op is able to sift through the responses and use the information and evidence to make good arguments.

I would focus on the neurosexism research from Cordelia Fine etc, showing that there is no such thing as an identifiable "female" brain. I think it's counterproductive to argue that innate gender identity is a legitimate concept because it will be understood as "born in the wrong body".

@Ereshkigalangcleg I agree.

"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."

Consider this statement as it relates to a survey question asking if you identify as female or not?

Is a deliberately leading survey question a "way of detecting it's presence" and "science" ? Has the ONS detected the presence of gender identity in over 40 million people. I think not. So not detecting in 2 plus million is equally bogus.

Google "are you trans" or "what's your gender" and a whole bunch of silly surveys come up. They are about as "science" as the census question.

I do not want to be over-prescriptive. But maybe you could read the article before attempting to criticise one of its conclusions?

I'm criticising the PPs proposed use of ONS data.

I've used the very sensible summary in the article to explain why I'm criticising the ONS data.

I'm sorry that went over your head. It's all there in the thread, if that's not being over prescriptive of course.

@hepwo you are not thinking about this from the perspective of lies, damned lies and statistics.

The ONS is a credible organisation who use a robust and published methodology. The ONS has defined what it means by GI and asked a question, which they have tested out and adjusted, with the aim of capturing the gender identity of the population of England and Wales. This is a credible methodology for collecting data, analysing it and drawing conclusions. the sample size and the fact it is part of a much larger survey adds to the credibility.

You have effectively stated the whole 2021 Census is not “scientific evidence”, dismissing its whole methodology and approach because of one question. You will never win that argument.

Consider my approach, treating the 2021 Census as scientific evidence and turn it round and use it to make our arguments. Most people won’t think about it a deeply as you are.

A good example was when I was watching one of the Scottish Government Committees about lessons learnt from the Adam Graham/Isla Bryson debacle. The Head of Scottish Prison Service was asked about transwomen in women’s prisons and if any of them have convictions for violence and/or sexual abuse. She deferred to her colleague who carefully said “not with a live conviction”. I expected someone to ask what about spent but no one did. I strongly suspect had the answers been no they would have said no. They didn’t lie they selectively used the data.

Remember one thing that TRAs, Stonewall, Mermaids, NHS, the Police, Scottish Gmt, RMW etc. agree on is they don’t want accurate data collection and analysis.

So back to the op. How would a school prove the 2021 Census results don’t mean anyone who said not applicable or chose not to answer that question can’t be interpreted as not having/believing in gender identity? They can’t argue the wrong question was asked, they can’t say there isn’t a definition of GI etc. any dispute undermines their own position.

So you can believe the question was wrong, you can believe the data/stats are fundamentally flawed but don’t dismiss using them to illustrate the flaws in the GI position.

Thank you for the glowing reference.

Yes, I wanted to be able to look thoroughly at the evidence. I'm also glad that there doesn't appear to be concrete proof, that the school can hit me with.

Looking at the neurological research is a fab starting place, thanks!

Isn’t “agender” a gender identity?

Therefore you have a gender identity even if you don’t.

Thus, everyone has a gender identity.

ereshkigalangcleg
I would focus on the neurosexism research from Cordelia Fine etc, showing that there is no such thing as an identifiable "female" brain. I think it's counterproductive to argue that innate gender identity is a legitimate concept because it will be understood as "born in the wrong body".

Definitely

Vebrithien there's loads In the g
Gendered Brain by Gina Rippon. It debunks the concept of a gendered brain.

She also wrote this with Fine and Joel which basically makes the point that data is interpreted through sexist lenses

sfonline.barnard.edu/eight-things-you-need-to-know-about-sex-gender-brains-and-behavior-a-guide-for-academics-journalists-parents-gender-diversity-advocates-social-justice-warriors-tweeters-facebookers-and-ever/

And the issues with data and statistics when looking at personality

For example:

The problem of false positives is also exacerbated by “publication bias,” in which journals prefer to publish positive or “significant” findings. Since even scientists and scientific journal editors can implicitly perceive a finding of no difference as “no finding” – or at least not an interesting one – null results often disappear. Publication bias creates an iceberg-like literature: what you see above the water are the published studies that report significant differences; what you do not see are the many, many more studies that “fail” to find differences. Publication bias means that the research canon becomes populated with many more positive findings than would be expected, and gives the impression that these are robust and reliable.

The idea that there's an innate 'gender identity' is socially constructed. And then the science goes looking for evidence.

Both the stereotyped markers that we look for to prove its existence and also the concept that we can lump them together and label them an "identity type."

Some will be from biological realities; eg the idea that a man is has a feminine identity as they're being gender non conforming. But being gender non conforming is on itself socially constructed- we notice it and label it as different to what we think is or should be the norm for men.

Is there any research that disproves it?

Research on the fallibility of research is what disproves it.