Opinions on the "twin studies" of gender identity?

submitted by DistantGlimmer from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Are you, and perhaps Dr Rosenthal, conflating or confusing gender dysphoria with gender identity? The article you linked about the study talks a lot about gender identity but the only data talking about twins is about gender dysphoria.

On the whole this "meta study" done by Dr Rosenthal seems questionable immediately because the studies Dr Rosenthal is fishing through are not related. They are not studying the same things and thus are using different methods and criteria and asking very different questions. Rosenthal seems to have selected studies to fit a poorly formed idea. Why do I say it is a poorly formed idea? The conclusion Rosenthal arrives at seems to be that gender identity (not seemingly even a topic of at least one of the studies) is "influenced by biology, environmental, and cultural factors". Wow, that's really nailing it down, isn't it? No study is needed to draw that conclusion. In any event, if you have gender dysphoria, it is "influenced" by biology because it is biology that your dysphoria is dysphoric about.

The argument is not about people having a gender identity, because that phrase in and of itself means nothing more than it means to know who you are or your eye color or your height and weight and any other identifying characteristics used to identify people. I know my sex, some people call that knowing my gender and some people then conclude I have a gender identity.

The question, really it is not yet a real question but a desperate hope of some, is if that identity is innate. If it is environmentally influenced or culturally influenced, then it is not innate. If it is a product of language to some extent, then it is not innate. If it is taught to us early on in our development through unspoken context cues then it is not innate. If it doesn't go beyond knowing because that is the reality of our sex, knowledge of one's sex, then where is innate different from common sense? How is "depth" of this innate identity claimed by some and denied by others, to where people can say I know I am this gender in spite of what others observe about one's biology, measured? Is it measured in stubbornness units, or denial of reality units? What differentiates it from just being stubbornly wrong or posturing? It seems to just come down to claims made and non-studies like this one are fishing for something that isn't even there when they say it is.

Ultimately still, "gender identity" is an umbrella term for identity categories in that no one actually even claims to have "gender identity" but that they are somehow a man or woman or something that gender identity is term used for that set of claims. Gender identity then is a term made up to describe a thing that might not exist beyond perhaps being the sets of people who know their sex or who claim something innate about that or in contradiction to that. What is a man or woman in this sense, and why does this supposedly innate and internal thing mimics the vocabulary of sex identification? We don't pretend blood types are correlated to sex, how is this innate thing meant to correlate and usurp sex? It sounds like a toxic mimic (google it). It sounds like the rationalization of men being a toxic mimic of women either to just creep on them or to avoid the pressures they perceive as being placed on them by manhood, or it sounds like a rationalization used by women trying to avoid the realities of being a woman in societies that treat women like objects or property. As a recent report about a rape victim described, the victim could not understand why her roomate raped her since she repeatedly said I identify as a man. She did not escape sex based oppression through gender.

[–]DistantGlimmer[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Interesting comment. Gender identity has always seemed completely ineffable to me. Like I've heard them try to explain it if you were switched into the other sexed body you'd be horrified but I don't think I would (any more than finding myself in any completely different body suddenly) I don't feel this connection to maleness and most GC women I've talked to don't seem to have a corresponding connection to femaleness.

It seems it mainly comes up through dysphoria which is much more concrete. I have felt strong discomfort at being expected to perform masculine gender roles. I can certainly empathize with the trans person in the old sub who told me their physical dysphoria was so bad that seeing their sexed anatomy made them want to claw their skin off. So I would guess the doctor is trying to prove the identity exists in some people by proving it causes dysphoria (although what that is can vary a lot and is not clearly defined in what I read of the study). I am sure there is a social element to dysphoria and it is connected to gender roles which would mean that if the kind of hypothesis this paper seems to present is true that gender identity would be too. I really believe that lessening the importance of gender roles in society would also cut down on the number of dysphoric people if not totally eliminate it.

As a recent report about a rape victim described, the victim could not understand why her roomate raped her since she repeatedly said I identify as a man. She did not escape sex based oppression through gender.

Wow, this is really heartbreaking and really illustrates what I think most of us, even trans people, know, that sex-based oppression is what is materially real.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think we as a society have not read own own memes in that well over a decade ago I used to see articles and pictures talking about the supposed warning signs of impending fascism (yes, I'm going there, kinda) which always included increasingly rigid sex stereotypes or gender roles, or hyper-masculinity. Its like people read that but didn't realize what it meant. Camille Paglia talks about it often. https://youtu.be/I8BRdwgPChQ?t=174 The point is not just that people are free to do what they want, which is obviously true, but what motivates it? How is it that males or females feel discomfort with what is basic biological reality?

That is part of why I don't really think talking about "transgenderism" like it is one thing, but a mix of: kids trying to escape the varying levels of hormones and the behaviors they create, kids freaked out by the changes their bodies are undergoing relative to those around them, adults trying to escape boredom or seeking attention or escape responsibility, liars, and a range of mental illnesses of which some are more dangerous to society than others. I think the term "transgender" is used to hide some of these groups, the liars and the dangerous, behind others. I avoid using it. I find the phrases "men in dresses" to cover most of the more problematic ones, and "girls trying to escape sexism" to cover the more tragic ones.

I really blame the education system, which does not educate at all but trains conformity and creates a sort of set of concentric circles of insiders who are paid attention to and celebrated for conformity (and not for really any great intellectual courage or skill), those with that courage who want to get in, those who are happy to go along to get along, and the rebels and outcasts. We not taught to build communities but to compete for better grades and better jobs. We are taught to escape our dead-end town if we're born in one, to reject ourselves and our culture and our family and neighbors, in favor of empty promises. We're not taught to serve each other with what we have, but to serve our superiors with what they value in us. We're not taught to be the best men and women we can be because that is not valued by anyone but us, if we're lucky enough to learn to value it.

That women are not valued I think is a reflection is that the ruling class no long needs to reproduce such a large labor pool and we, the surplus labor pool, pose more of a risk to them through rebellion than they care to tolerate. So, various ways of stunting a generation's reproductive capacity will solve a lot of problems for them. I read recently that the average women must produce 2.1 kids for society, ie the surplus labor pool, to reproduce itself. Replacing women with men in dresses, as they do in Iran but for homophobic reasons, and replacing teenage girls with bearded little petite "dudes" running around dressed like surprisingly well-groomed lumberjacks (the "Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate" character from the Pirate animated movie from a few years ago comes to mind), each ruining their own reproductive capacity, for one generation will put a dent in our population the builder of the Georgia Guidestones would salivate over.

As for the tragic rape I talked about, I wish trans people acknowledged material reality and did acknowledge sex is real and woman is the term of a type of body a person has. Instead I see bullshit like 'sex is a social construct', and no acknowledgement that "misgendering" is just correctly stating one's sex.

I wish to let you have the last word here if you choose. I see you are replying to like everyone who responds and that is very cool, but it is also very taxing and I do not wish to tax you further.

[–]adungitit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I find the phrases "men in dresses" to cover most of the more problematic ones,

I don't like the implication that men in dresses are doing something concerning.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are intentionally misreading it then. When I have to refer to problematic ones doing problematic things, like sexual assaults or beating up old women, I don't need to use any neologisms because I can usually use the phrase "men in dresses". That does not say nor imply that all men in dresses are causing trouble. I have known a few men who wear dresses and skirts and all sorts of gender non-conforming clothes who have not been anything other than fine people. I don't like that you're reading into my statement something that is not there, but have fun with it.