‘The Trainer’ visual Illusion as an analogy of gender identity?

[ThisPinkWyvern]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/puzzles/4663517/are-these-trainers-pink-and-white-or-blue-and-grey/

In 2015, ‘ The Dress’ visual illusion went viral on the internet. In 2017, another similar visual illusion , ‘ The trainer’ also went viral. Some people see ‘ the dress’ as being coloured black and blue, while others see it as being coloured white and gold. Similarly with ‘the Trainer’, some see it as being coloured grey and teal, while others see it as being coloured pink and white.

Are these two contrary but complimentary ways of experiencing the colours of ‘ the dress’ and ‘ the trainer’ analogous to the experience of gender identity?

What do you think?

I think you might need to explain the analogy in a bit more detail. I don't see how it relates.

I don't think it works as an analogy. Placing men in women's prisons is not just a matter of perspective; its material reality that affects all of the women prisoners.

Assuming that the dress/the trainers' colours are perceived the same way throughout then no, it's not a good analogy. Gender may be seen and interpreted differently by different people but sex is real, biological and constant. It will not change however it is perceived. Doesn't matter how many people think I'm a man on the phone, I'm in the sex class that produce large gametes and have given birth.

I was going to post something pertinent, but its been said perfectly above.
Thanks

The parameters of gender are not like colour, though - they appear to be defined by and depend on social norms at the time of asking. Although part of the problem is that there isn't any definition of gender or consensus about what it actually is.

eg Currently pink and frills = feminine gender ; but a couple of centuries ago pink and frills was masculine wear. This is perhaps a trivial example, but as I say, there isn't any coherent definition anyway.

What I found with 'The dress' and also with this 'The trainer' illusion, was that if I tipped my screen, I could get the colours to change. I guess the big question is, what colour would it be if I printed a copy of the image onto paper? Would the illusion and colour swap aspect be removed on a hard copy Vs looking at the image on a screen?

That’s an optical illusion and was generated for that purpose. It’s simply how we perceives certain colours. (It’s like the young woman and the old hag illusion)

Gender is what you present to the world, what you want the world to see you as, the sex which you identify with and want to be.

Sex is what you are. It can’t be changed ever no matter how many surgical procedures you have. I will never be a man.

That said, live how you want and most people will be respectful and call you by your preferred pronouns to be polite.

The two contrary ways of seeing the colours of the trainer could be viewed as being analogous to different views about gender identity - one view holding that it is objective and consistent with the colour in which the shoe was manufactured ( i.e. gender identity is consistent with the biological sex ), and the other that is subjective and is capable of being contrary to the biological sex as well as being able to be consistent with it.

The analogy presumes that each view has equal weight. I’m not sure that it stands up.
one view is that sex is real and that gender was a load of nonsense that we were successfully moving away from. The other view is that we all have an internal thing called a gender identity and that it must take precedence over all else.

They’re very different things

You seem to have misrepresented the gender critical viewpoint. We dont think 'gender identity' is biological at all (sex is tho). We just think its made up nonesense.

I don't think anyone holds the view that gender identity "is objective and consistent with [sex]". People here mostly think gender identity is narcissistic navel-gazing that has no relevance to other people or broader society (the GC view) or that it is something profound and meaningful which we should restructure our society around (the TRA view).

An optical illusion vs gender stereotypes?

Most humans unless they have issues recognising other humans will not mistake the sex of anyone.

Gender stereotypes of clothing and also plastic surgery can create an optical illusion but close up you'll still be able to tell.

I wonder if anyone really thinks that someone presenting in the clothing that we traditionally associate with the opposite sex means that person is actually the opposite sex.

How does this relate to your analogy? A trick of the light or whatever can confuse perhaps.

It seems very odd that what you apparently want to know from the thread is people's opinion on whether gender identity is like an optical illusion, but all that your poll asks is about what colour people think the trainer is

one view holding that it is objective and consistent with the colour in which the shoe was manufactured ( i.e. gender identity is consistent with the biological sex ), and the other that is subjective and is capable of being contrary to the biological sex as well as being able to be consistent with it.

I'm pretty sure that most gc people think option c, which is that gender identity isn’t really a thing. It's just a bunch of outdated sex-based stereotypes. As such, it neither aligns with biological sex nor differs from it. It's basically just a woke (but actually deeply regressive) way of categorising a collection personality traits and aesthetic preferences which can all easily apply to a person of either sex and therefore cannot logically be used to categorise anyone as a man or a woman. Only biology can do that.

It looks light pink, but I can believe it's grey and the light is effecting it. The other parts, look a very specific minty light green. I can't see those being any other colour even with light variation.

This is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. That there are optical illusions that make one thing look different to different people has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there are two sexes and that single sex spaces should be just that.

Just because a person can give the illusion if you don't look too closely that they are the opposite sex does not mean that they actually are the opposite sex

Sea horses are horses. Prove me wrong!

Nah. If we must use a footwear analogy, it's more like. I don't know - thinking a trainer is a welly boot because it's yellow and you have always felt that colour is synonymous with waterproof boots. It is not a welly boot, even if you describe it thus while jumping gleefully into puddles, insisting that your feet are dry when in fact they are soggy. Then, when someone points out, quite reasonably, that your trainers are soaked through, you have a massive strop and call the police to arrest them for calling your wellies trainers, and doubting their waterproof qualities.

Are you American op? And I presume you've not read many threads here?

As PP have pointed out, you've not understood the gender critical position at all. The clue really is in the name. Being critical of gender means not believing in gender identity at all. Think of it as like atheism. It means being critical of the notion that gender stereotypes are innate, regardless of whether they're the ones associated with your sex or the opposite.

The two positions in your analogy are two sides of the same coin. Both believe in gender stereotypes and both are concerned with maintaining the patriarchal status quo. They just disagree on whether humans should change their personality or their bodies.

Feminists say fuck that.

These things are so ridiculous.
Tip your screen one way and you see one colour, tip it the other way and you see another. This is why I don't like buying clothes online. Whenever they arrive they are usually a completely different colour than expected - unless it is black or navy, which is somewhat limiting.
As for the gender nonsense, as pp said, really scraping the barrel.

Thank you all for your participation in the poll and your responses.

The visual illusion is linked to the simple riddle:

Everyone with the eyes to see can see me although I am invisible.
I see you everyday, but you do not see me.
Everyone knows my thoughts and opinions, but I am not famous.
I do not have a biological sex, but I do have a gender identity.
What am I?